Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CULAG (LOCHINVER) PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Emission)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the consultations on proposals to control the emissions from petrol-engined vehicles with interested organisations have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): Not yet. Interested organisations were asked to comment by 14th July.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his recent statements in reply to Questions on this matter have been scandalously complacent? Is it not a fact that his proposals for British cars in April, 1973, and beyond are worse than those for America in 1970? Is it not a fact that American cars will be virtually pollution-free by 1975? Why should British cars exported to America not be allowed to poison Americans but when sold here be allowed to poison Britons?

Mr. Peyton: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman has his own standards of complacency, and he is welcome to them.

On the matter of substance which he raises, I am concerned with pollution here, not in America. We are endeavouring, on a European basis, to get a sensible, orderly system of rules applicable in Europe. The Americans have special problems which they must look after in their own ways and I must leave them to it. I should not dream of interfering.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the report is available the residents in Hendon, where the M1 starts and whose flats are a few feet away from it, can look for some rectification of the desperate pollution and noise from which they are suffering?

Mr. Peyton: I realise that there are instances such as the one described by my hon. Friend where pollution is bad and oppressive. We are attempting to deal with the problem, but it is important that these things should be dealt with in a sensible, long-term way so that the remedy is effective.

Thames Estuary (Industrial Concentration)

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will order an inquiry into the total effect on the local environment of the concentration of oil refineries and other industrial plant, existing and planned, in the Thames estuary with special reference to Canvey Island, Benfleet and Southend-on-Sea.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I assure my hon. Friend that, when proposals for new developments of this sort are before the local planning authorities, or being considered by me on call-in or on appeal, the wider effects are taken into account.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is deep and widespread concern in South-East Essex—where many people have made their homes, and more are coming as a result of the Government's decision to site the third London airport at Foulness—about the deterioration of our environment by piecemeal development, with oil refinery after oil refinery being authorised? If my right hon. Friend means what he says about protecting the human environment, will he set up a planning inquiry commission


to inquire into the totality of the threat to our environment?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, when I was last concerned with a major decision on this matter he was satisfied with the manner in which we took account of all the environmental factors in the region in which he takes such an interest. It is also true that, as a result of the activities of various sections of my Department, air pollution in Southend and other areas has diminished rather than increased during the more recent period. I do not consider that there is any evidence of a need for a further wide inquiry into this matter, but again I assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider any application in this area in terms of its effect on the totality of the area and not in isolation.

Pollution (International Monitoring)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what part Great Britain will be playing in the global monitoring programme agreed at Stockholm.

Mr. Peter Walker: I welcome the conference recommendations for improved Earthwatch programmes, particularly for monitoring of the atmosphere. The United Kingdom will make a full contribution. Details are being worked out in the World Meteorological and other international organisations, and I shall make a further announcement as need be.

Mr. Lamont: Is not this an area in which Britain has considerable experience, both in techniques and sophisticated instrumentation? As my right hon. Friend recently said that were he starting in business today he would be in the anti-pollution field, will he encourage the development and use of British technology for this purpose?

Mr. Walker: There is a wide range of activities in this field. There is immense opportunity for this country, particularly in this respect, and we shall liaise with the Department of Trade and Industry to see that every advantage is taken of it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that monitoring in all three elements—land, water and air—is vital as they are intimately connected?

Mr. Walker: I very much agree.

Ocean Dumping

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress was made at Stockholm towards a global agreement on ocean dumping.

Mr. Peter Walker: The conference recommended that Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, should convene a conference before November, 1972, for the purpose of agreeing a global convention on ocean dumping on the basis of draft articles which were agreed at previous meetings in London and Iceland. I am pleased to say that the conference is to take place in London. It is the intention that the convention should be open for signature by the end of the year. The Government are happy to accept this recommendation.

Mr. Skeet: Following from the Stockholm conference, is my right hon. Friend prepared to adopt the European approach to the Commission so as to get the association of the Ten countries plus also the littoral States? Will he also bear in mind that a system of priorities would be useful when considering chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides and such things?

Mr. Walker: The North Sea countries have already agreed to a convention, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be close collaboration with our friends in Europe.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dumping of solid atomic waste should be included, as it is estimated that the containers in which it is dumped last only for a period of 15 years?

Mr. Walker: I envisage that the convention will cover that aspect.

Computerised Information (Confidentiality)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the personal information being processed by his Department's vehicle licensing computer at Swansea, and its use by commercial organisations.

Mr. Peyton: The personal information required by the Department will be available on the same basis as before; that is, the name and address of vehicle owners will be given to local authorities, the police and others showing "reasonable cause". Only personal information which is provided voluntarily by the public will be made available to the motor industry.

Mr. Huckfield: What business can the right hon. Gentleman's Department have in asking those who register new cars, their age, their sex, and their financial means of purchasing their cars? What possible business can the Department have in so inquiring? Will information go to commercial organisations and, if so, what rules will govern confidentiality?

Mr. Peyton: The information which goes to commercial organisations—that is, the motor industry—will only be information which is given voluntarily by the public. At the time of its inception the form was thought to be one helpful to the customer, the motor industry and the Government.

Mr. McBride: I accept that a high sense of confidentiality will be observed in the Swansea office. More important, however, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the central vehicle licensing office which is to be situated in my constituency will become fully operational?

Mr. Peyton: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I did not quite get the point about his constituency.

Mr. McBride: When will the central vehicle licensing office become fully operational in Swansea?

Mr. Peyton: That is another question but I think that it will be within the next two years. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on the subject, I will try to answer it.

United Nations Conference

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm on 6th June.

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much will

the United Kingdom be subscribing to the Environment Fund agreed at Stockholm.

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response there was in Stockholm to his offer to house the new United Nations Environment Secretariat in London.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the United Nations Conference on the Environment at Stockholm.

Mr. Peter Walker: In addressing the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment on 6th June, I put forward an eight-point programme of practical and attainable international action. In brief this covered ocean dumping, clean rivers, monitoring, information exchanges, technical assistance, a new United Nations institution and a fund, and a declaration. I am glad to be able to inform the House that our objectives in all these areas were attained. I am satisfied that the conference has laid a firm basis for future international co-operation on environmental problems.
My offer of London as a home for the new United Nations secretariat was well received and will be evaluated together with other offers. Pending the result of this process no firm figure can be given for the United Kingdom contribution to the voluntary fund but it will not be less than 5 per cent. of the total.
I took the opportunity while in Stockholm to meet a number of representatives of developing countries, and I am convinced that the conference brought about a greater degree of common understanding of environmental problems between industrialised countries and the developing world. The latter welcomes the prospect of technical aid on these problems to which the new United Nations fund will make a valuable contribution.
I have placed in the Library copies of my speech to the conference and I will place provisional texts of the agreed declaration and action programme. When study of the action programme has been completed I will consider whether further publicity is needed.
I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and to others representing


interests outside the Government who joined our delegation and helped to make a success of our participation.

Mr. Steel: I shall confine my supplementary question to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. While we welcomed and fully supported the proposal that the United Nations Environment Agency might be set up in this country, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a feeling about the number of public agencies already in London? If it is not possible for the agency to go elsewhere, would he consider a proposal to move some other agency from London and so not add to environmental problems here in inviting this agency, which is very welcome, to this country?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly bear that view in mind.

Sir D. Renton: At what stage and to what extent was it acknowledged at Stockholm that the threat to the environment is due to a combination of economic development and population growth?

Mr. Walker: This subject formed a considerable part of the discussions that took place, and a United Nations conference on problems of population will take place in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable concern about the difference between what was said at Stockholm and the actions of Governments throughout the world? Will he consider setting up not a departmental inquiry, as was suggested at Stockholm, but a Select Committee of this House to consider the implementation of some of the recommendations of his own working party report, particularly "Sinews for Survival", in particular paragraph 192 of that report? Is the Secretary of State aware that the working party concluded that there is not much time to spare?

Mr. Walker: My Department is carrying out an extensive inquiry, but the setting up of a Select Committee is not a matter for me to decide.

Mr. Crosland: I believe that the United Kingdom Government delegation at Stockholm made an extremely impressive contribution to the success of the conference. I should like to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First.

will he agree, as I am sure he does, that Stockholm will prove to be important not for the eloquent speeches that were made but for such follow-up action as may occur? It is, of course, too early to comment on that, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider, perhaps in the autumn when the House reassembles, presenting a White Paper telling us what follow-up action has been taken?
Secondly, as to the new United Nations Environmental Fund, which I greatly welcome, may I put it that the British contribution should not come from the existing aid programme but must be in addition to it?

Mr. Walker: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I must express gratitude for the part he played in the conference. I shall certainly consider the suggestion of publishing a White Paper in the autumn outlining follow-up action. I agree that it is the follow-up to Stockholm that is all important. The fund will be additional to existing aid.

Heavy Vehicles (Port Weighbridges)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to make it obligatory for all car ferry terminals to make available in close proximity to the docks weighbridges capable of checking the weights of heavy lorries entering the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is the shortest and most disappointing reply I have ever had from a Minister? Before my right hon. Friend made that decision, was he satisfied that all car ferry terminals have a weighbridge? Does he realise that the opening of the new car ferry at Folkestone on Saturday is causing real concern to the people living in the all too inadequate streets there and that it is no satisfaction to them to know that lorries have to go through those streets before they can be checked for weight?

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, now and always, but my answer had the merit of being both brief and accurate: I always understood that neither was a vice.


Having said that, let me tell my hon. Friend and the House that 12 out of the 17 roll-on/roll-off ferries have adequate weighbridges and that for four out of the remaining five my Department provides temporary facilities. I am very well aware of the problem. Indeed I believe that my hon. Friend quite rightly makes the most of every opportunity to bring to my notice the problems of Folkestone, and if I can help him in this respect I shall certainly look into the matter and do what I can.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that all our docks and harbours can weigh vehicles of 40 tons gross, which looks like being the new limit? He must be aware that we do not have a sufficient number of weighbridges for such vehicles throughout the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that in future most emphasis would be put on weighing these vehicles at the ports?

Mr. Peyton: That is quite right, and it is a problem we have to look at increasingly. I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures.

Building Land

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation for the public ownership of building land.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister explain how the Government propose to make sure that the increased profits arising from land speculation accrue to the public purse, since the increase in prices is generally due to public works and developments of one kind and another? Before giving another reply of that curt nature, will he read the speeches made a few years ago by the present Secretary of State for Social Services when he indicated that the public ought to ensure that the profits accruing from land speculation and land development should accrue to the public purse and not to the private speculator?

Mr. Page: A certain amount of the profit is taken in capital gains tax. But

the policy of the Government is to bring forward as much land as possible and thereby stabilise the prices, and that is the policy enunciated by my right hon. Friend on 27th April.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ill-judged introduction of betterment levy by the previous Administration is at least partially responsible for the present increase in land prices?

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Paget: Why is it that on clearance areas local authorities can pull down the houses and pay outrageously low compensation but cannot get vacant land except at quite outrageous prices and after outrageous delay? This is becoming a scandal.

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that £80 million of loan sanction funds would be available for the acquisition of land by local authorities.

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the amount of land being made available in inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The Government's measures to ensure that sufficient land will be available for housing should help in inner city areas as elsewhere. It is in the first instance for the local planning and housing authorities to decide what land should be used for housing.

Mr. Carter: With sky-rocketing land prices in city centres and scandalous development like that of Centre Point, is not land for purely housing purposes rapidly diminishing? What do the Minister and the Government intend to do to arrest the decline of purely city centres into concrete deserts?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the package announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making more land available and the facilities being given to local authorities to assemble land. The new slum clearance and rising cost subsidies envisaged under the Housing Finance Bill should also help from the point of


view of redeveloping cleared land. The price of land very largely follows the price of houses, and the price of houses has soared in the way it has in response to the effective demand in people's pockets at present.

Mr. Evelyn King: If I were to ask my right hon. Friend by how much the supply of land for building purposes had increased in recent months or in the last year, would he be able to give the figures for particular districts? The House has been demonstrably short of these figures and should have them.

Mr. Amery: I have not got the figures from the differentlocal authorities. I have figures, though not with me, for London, where the Action Group headed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been extremely active and vigorous on Government land that is released for housing. I will write to my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Lipton: Bearing in mind the shortage of land in the inner city areas, what will the Government do about Centre Point?

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his position on this matter extremely clear. While I acceptthat the question is broadly related to the amount of land being made available in the inner city areas, perhaps the hon. Member would put down a separate Question.

Mr. Crosland: For my part I support what the Secretary of State is doing about Centre Point, but let us be realistic—

Mr. Skinner: He is doing nothing.

Mr. Crosland: I said let us be realistic.

Mr. Skinner: It is just talk.

Mr. Crosland: At this moment people are being turned out of GLC flats in the Covent Garden area in order to make way either for office building or for additional road widening. Is not the Minister aware that the only way in which he will settle the problem is to respond to the demand by the Opposition in the debate on Piccadilly and Covent Garden that the Government must have a plan first for restricting the amount of office space in inner city areas and, second, for restricting private motor traffic? Without a plan for both

these matters there is no possibility of solving the housing shortage.

Mr. Amery: There is very close co-operation between my Department and the GLC in all these matters and I do not believe that there is an absence of good planning. The work of the London Action Group has been extremely helpful and will lead to—[An Hon. Member: "More offices."]—and I scarcely dare to say it—to a solution to the problem in the course of the next few years.

Land and House Prices

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his assessment of the results of the measures taken about land prices.

Mr. Graham Page: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 1506–8.]

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that this is wholly inadequate? If he will not pay attention to anything I say, will he pay attention to the CBI? Is he aware that the CBI has said
The present escalation of land prices calls for most urgent action."?
Is the Minister further aware that the CBI has declared that the scandal of rising land and house prices is a running sore poisoning its whole efforts to combat inflation? In view of this, does not the Minister realise that the time has come when he simply must do something?

Mr. Page: I do not wish to belittle the importance of the problem in any way. It is the Government's policy to stabilise home prices by building more homes and increasing the supply of developable land with financial support for land acquisition and for providing services.

Mr. Trew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour Government had maintained the level of private housing starts which they inherited there would now be 300,000 more private homes and considerably less pressure on the housing market?

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Minister recognise that the best possible way of dealing with the problem of land prices and bringing more land on to the market is simply to introduce site value taxation? The


mere fact that the Liberal Party has been advocating this for about 20 years is only one reason why it is right to do so, but it is also a reason why both of the other parties will eventually accept it.

Mr. Page: That goes a little beyond the Question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a Question on that subject, I shall answer it.

Mr. John Silkin: Regarding the reply given to my right hon. Friend on 14th June, will the Minister also confirm the reply to which he had to admit on that occasion that since his right hon. Friend abolished the Land Commission the price of land has risen by 53 per cent., and that it is going up at a rate, between one time and another, of about £250 per week? In the event, is it not time that the Government took more action than merely making available £80 million to local authorities?

Mr. Page: I certainly do not accept those figures. It is possible to produce any statistics of that sort by selection of areas throughout the country. Of course there is pressure in certain areas, but there is certainly no evidence that nationalisation of anything has in itself lowered prices.

Mr. Willey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour at an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available figures for house prices in the United Kingdom as compared with a year ago and two years ago, respectively.

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage house prices rose in England and Wales between June, 1970, and the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Amery: The average price of private houses in the United Kingdom mortgaged with building societies in the first quarter of 1972 was 21 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1971 and 32 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1970. The increase for private houses mortgaged with building societies in England and Wales

was 33 per cent. in the first quarter of 1972 compared with the second quarter of 1970.
House prices in Great Britain over the two years April, 1970, to April, 1972, rose by 29 per cent. while earnings rose by 24 per cent. In the first half of this period earnings were rising substantially faster than house prices; since then the position has been reversed.

Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister tackle this problem instead of the Secretary of State making speeches about Harry Hyams? There are plenty of Harry Hyams causing the problem of house prices. The Minister talks about money supply being adequate to provide a greater number of houses and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is a 23 per cent. increase in the money supply. But if house prices are rising, according to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, by 32 per cent., how on earth can people buy more houses?

Mr. Amery: The short answer is that they are buying houses. A larger number of houses have been bought on mortgage than ever before. A higher percentage of people aged 25 or under are included among those buying. Twenty-six per cent. of new houses are going to people aged 25 or under and about 25 per cent. of all mortgages are going to people earning £30 or less. It would be perfectly easy to bring down the price of houses—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do it?

Mr. Amery: I could do it if I asked the building societies to restrict credit to where it stood in 1970 so that there was a 20 per cent. deposit and a 20-year repayment period instead of virtually no deposit and a 30-year repayment period. Then, while the better off would always be able to afford the deposit and the repayment, those at the lower end of the market would be unable to afford the loan and the supply of houses would dry up because builders would cease to build. I would have no part in any such restrictions.

Mr. John Hall: To get the matter into perspective can my right hon. Friend tell us how the price of houses has risen over the last 10 years compared with the rise in prices generally?

Mr. Amery: The rise in house prices since 1967 has been consistently somewhat above the general retail price index. Only between 1969 and the end of 1970 was it less than the rise in earnings and the position has since been reversed. House prices over the last two years have risen by 29 per cent. while earnings have risen by 24 per cent.

Mr. Freeson: On the tape this afternoon at 1 p.m. it was announced through a report from the Nationwide Building Society's latest survey that there has been a 17 per cent. rise in new house prices in the first six months of this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain, on the question of supply and demand which he constantly comes back to, how it is that every month he stands at the Dispatch Box and announces increased percentages in new housing under construction and yet, according to figures from his Department, there are fewer houses under construction today than there were in June, 1970? The figures have dropped from 416,000 to 396,000. How can that be in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has been telling the House during the last two years?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is quite wrong. Last year showed a 26 per cent. increase in starts of new houses in the private sector and this year already the first quarter has shown a further 14 per cent. rise.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is now taking to ensure that increases in house and land prices will not continue and that they will be stable by the autumn of this year.

Mr. Amery: Our policy is to create a situation in which the supply of building land and of houses will increase fast enough to meet the demand for home ownership.

Mr. Hardy: That is a demonstrably complacent reply, revealing that the Government now have nothing to offer save excessive over-optimism. Will the Minister confirm the report which some of us have received that at this morning's conference he suggested that one way of reducing house prices was greatly to increase the deposit which would-be purchasers would have to put down for a mortgage?

Mr. Amery: I never suggested or advocated that we should increase the deposit so as to reduce house purchase demand. I said exactly the opposite: that I would have nothing to do with such a policy. A few minutes ago I pointed out that it would be easy to stabilise house prices by doing just that but that it would deprive people who could not afford the deposit or could not afford a short repayment period of the chance of getting a home, and I would have nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Rost: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the rise in the price of houses and land is due to the disgraceful failure of the previous Government to build enough houses?

Mr. Amery: When we took office, home loans were hard to get, requiring a substantial deposit and a comparatively short repayment period, there were more bankruptcies among builders than at any time since the war and houses were not being built. We have been able to create an effective demand by co-operation with the building societies and by lifting the local authority ceiling on mortgages. House are now being built.
I take this opportunity to correct a figure which I gave the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) a few minutes ago, which may have misled him. I said that in the first five months of this year the increase in private sector housing had been 14 per cent.; in fact it was 16 per cent.

Mr. Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his party took office there were 416,000 dwellings under construction in England and Wales? Today, on the latest figures available from his Department, there are 396,000 houses under construction. Therefore, is it not correct to say that, far from increasing the rate of building, there has been a slowing down in the rate under the present Government?

Mr. Amery: When the hon. Gentleman's party was in power there was a fantastically long delay in the completion of houses. The 1971 figures show an overall increase in starts. The first five months of 1972 show an overall increase in starts, taking the public and private sectors together.

Rivers (International Pollution Control)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is putting forward on an international basis for the cleaning up of big river systems which pollute the seas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he had at Stockholm to his proposal for a world clean rivers programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The conference agreed to recommend that Governments should strengthen national controls over land-based sources of marine pollution together with a programme of research and classification. This is in line with my right hon. Friend's present policy for the cleaning up of our rivers and we look forward to co-operating with neighbouring countries in putting it into effect.

Mr. Dalyell: What capital is involved and what time scale?

Mr. Griffiths: So far as this country is concerned, a very substantial increase—more than 50 per cent. in real terms—in cleaning up our rivers. It is £1,300 million over the next five years.

Mr. Rost: While other countries may not have been prepared to give an undertaking to do very much very quickly, may we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will continue his excellent work in making sure that this country continues to set a first-class example?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. We are particularly well placed to do that, because due to my right hon. Friend's policies we now have a pollution of rivers survey that is the best in the world, we have more experience in mathematical modelling than any other country, we are providing the money, and under the new proposals for water reorganisation we shall be bringing sewerage and water management together.

Sir G. de Freitas: In considering any future proposals, will the Minister consider the Council of Europe charter on pure water which was adopted by about 17 countries four or five years ago?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I think that this country is making good progress in that direction.

Driving Licences (Photographs)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require every driving licence to carry a photograph of the licence holder.

Mr. Peyton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) on 8th March, 1972.—[Vol. 832, c. 1420.]

Mr. Woodhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a number of recent cases people who have been disqualified by the courts from driving have used stolen driving licences to hire cars, with the consequence that the firm or individual hiring out the car was deprived of insurance cover in the event of an accident? Will my right hon. Friend therefore carefully reconsider this matter?

Mr. Peyton: I have looked at the matter very carefully. I looked at it again when my hon. Friend tabled his Question and before I gave the reply. On the whole, I am satisfied that photographs would not prevent forgery or misuse of a licence. Moreover, if we implement the very helpful idea of licences which are valid for life, the purpose would be largely invalidated if photographs were to accompany licences, as unfortunately even Members of Parliament would need to renew their photographs because they change slightly in appearance.

Local Government Districts (Size)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Boundary Commission-designate to withdraw its letter of 25th April, 1972, in which it states its policy towards local government districts below 75,000 in population until after the local evidence is heard.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. The Commission-designate's letter of 25th April does not exclude alternative proposals for new districts below 75,000 population. I understand that such proposals have been made by some of the local authorities in


South Dorset and the Commission-designate will of course consider these when reviewing its draft proposals.

Mr. King: If that reassurance is as total as I think, indeed we are grateful. Is it not strange that the Boundary Commission-designate should be prejudging the issue before hearing the evidence and has said something that was in conflict with the assurance that Ministers have given? It is vital that the Commission-designate should take account of local opinion and listen to people from local organisations. I hope my right hon. Friend accepts that.

Mr. Page: That is what the Commission-designate intends to do, and I did not interpret the letter as my hon. Friend does. The facts show that of the 278 districts proposed by the Commission, 76 are below the 75,000 figure. The Commission has an open mind on this matter, and I urge my hon. Friend to put his case for South Dorset to the Commission.

Small Properties (Rent)

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable the rents of small properties to be fixed with a view to enabling their owners to keep their property in repair and at the same time receive what is assessed to be a reasonable income there from.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): This is being done; fair rents are being extended to rent-controlled dwellings in a phased programme under the Housing Finance Bill.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, of which I was fully aware. Will he say how long it will be before owners of these small properties will be able to charge such rents as will enable them to let their properties and to keep them in repair and enjoy a decent income?

Mr. Eyre: All the circumstances are taken into account in assessing the fair rent, as my hon. Friend knows, including responsibility for repairs. The period of phasing reasonably takes into account the changing circumstances.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister has just made it clear that the rents of private

houses as well as council houses will increase very markedly as a result of the Housing Finance Bill. Will he therefore comment on the report that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, at a conference this morning, described the Housing Finance Bill as a weapon against inflation? Will the Minister say how much more ridiculous the Government can become?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman must remember that under the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill very generous help is to be given to people in need and to the lower income groups. This is distinctly disinflationary in its effect.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, if this proposal were to be accepted, some landlords would exploit the situation and carry out minimum repairs and take the increased rents for their own profits? Will he bear in mind in future that landlords' action should be very carefully scrutinised if there is to be any change in rent control on a policy basis for improvements and repairs?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the protection of the tenant is in no way diminished under the Housing Finance Bill and that local authorities have statutory powers to require a landlord to do works where a dwelling is in need of repair.

Specialist Work Teams

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to take steps to keep together specialised work teams such as the West Riding County Council land clearance and dereliction team during the period of reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Graham Page: There are many specialist teams operating in local government which should be kept together during and upon reorganisation, and my right hon. Friend intends to issue guidance on the ways in which this might be done.

Mr. Duffy: I thank the Minister. Is he aware that there is anxiety in the West Riding not only that the Minister should devise an interim solution so as not to prejudice the very important work on which a very fine team of specialists of this kind, with its support staffs, is at


present engaged, but that he should also look forward to the time when the area is divided between the Sheffield and Leeds metropolitan areas, so that the team can be preserved for that time? At the moment the team divides its work as to60 per cent. in the South Yorkshire area and 40 per cent. in the West Yorkshire area.

Mr. Page: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the West Riding County Council reclamation unit. The unit is responsible for approximately half the reclamation to be undertaken in the Yorkshire and Humberside region up to 1980, and unless it continues in some form it will be impossible to achieve the target set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of reclaiming all major derelict sites within 10 years. Clauses 101 and 113 of the Local Government Bill afford the opportunity for the continuation of the unit.

Housing (Southampton)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many starts in local authority housing in Southampton have taken place in 1971 and up to the present time in 1972; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eyre: In 1971 there were 214 starts and up to the end of May, 1972, there were 201 starts.

Mr. Mitchell: Is not the figure for 1971 absolutely disgraceful? When the Labour Party held control of Southampton Council before 1967 the figure of starts was running at over 1,000 a year. Is not this a good example of Tory local government?

Mr. Eyre: It is for each local council to consider its housing needs and how best it can meet them. The present Government, unlike the last one, placed no restriction on the amount that local authorities may borrow to build houses.

Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past, when Southampton was Labour-controlled, the rate of building of council properties was at the ratio of two to one to private development, and that it is now more like one to one? Is not this a more equitable and good social mix?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend is right in explaining that there are a number of ways in which local needs for housing can be catered for.

Motorways (Maintenance Costs)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how maintenance costs of black top and reinforced concrete on motorways compare on a lane-mile basis in the first five years after construction and in the last five years, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I regret that information is not available which would enable this comparison to be made. Maintenance costs are affected by many diverse factors which can vary greatly between different motorways.

Mr. Tuck: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a recent answer he gave me shows that there is a vast discrepancy between the maintenance costs of black top and those of reinforced concrete, showing the vast superiority of reinforced concrete? Is he aware that we all hope he will bear that in mind when deciding in future between black top and reinforced concrete?

Mr. Speed: Yes. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is carrying out a very full study of this question. I hope to have the report early next year.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Although my hon. Friend should bear in mind the economic costs, should he not also bear in mind the environmental issue, remembering that black top is far superior visually to reinforced concrete which easily scars and is dreadful in appearance after a period?

Mr. Speed: This shows that very great differences of opinion exist. All these matters are being investigated.

Corby New Town (Industry)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Chairman of the East Midlands Economic Planning Council on the encouragement of new industries in Corby New Town.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development was to have met the Economic Planning Council on 23rd June but has had to defer the meeting until later this month.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware of the opinion of the Chairman of the Economic Planning Council that it is wrong from an economic and national viewpoint to deny Corby the right to diversify its industry?

Mr. Amery: All these matters can best be discussed when my right hon. Friend meets the council and has a talk with the chairman.

Sir G. de Freitas: This was 10 months ago. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Highway Maintenance

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends, in view of the Loft house Report and the Marshall Report on Highway Maintenance, to introduce legislation to amend the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, to give effect to their recommendations.

Mr. Speed: The Public Utilities Street Works Act conference of interested parties has this matter under consideration, and I shall study any recommendations of that conference for amending legislation.

Mr. White: While expressing gratitude to my hon. Friend, may I remind him that the Act is 22 years old and that many local authorities responsible for highway maintenance are experiencing considerable difficulty? Many of the recommendations made in both reports commend themselves and would assist those authorities in discharging their duties.

Mr. Speed: My Department is preparing a guide to the 1950 Act which will help to improve the knowledge of local authorities. This guide should be published in the autumn. I am anxious that we should make further progress and get on with this matter, which infuriates the public.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is it not high time that the Government ceased the

practice of accepting reports and then passing the buck to a conference or a committee to decide on action or inaction? The Marshall Report should have been acted on many months ago. I agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) that there are many ideal proposals in the report which should be put into effect as soon as possible.

Mr. Speed: I accept that this is a problem. I am very interested in it and anxious to get on. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government which set up the conference.

Emsworth Bypass

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has with delegations from Emsworth and from Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council on his decition to reject the findings of the court of inquiry into the Emsworth short bypass.

Mr. Speed: No final decision has yet been taken on this scheme. I have written to my hon. Friend explaining why we are unable to receive deputations on the matter from particular groups of interests.

Mr. Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend recognise that while my constituents appreciate that no decision has yet been taken, they are greatly disappointed that the Secretary of State has refused to receive them?

Mr. Speed: We took legal advice on this matter. It is improper at this stage, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, to receive this sort of deputation.

Convicted Women Motorists (Age)

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what administrative purposes the age of a woman is required to be given when she is convicted in the courts for a motoring offence.

Mr. Peyton: Date of birth will be needed to identify drivers when driving licences begin to be issued centrally from next March.

Mrs. Fisher: In view of the sensitivity which males and females feel about divulging their ages, cannot the Minister think of a more sophisicated way to


register drivers instead of a jumbling up of the birth dates of all motorists?

Mr. Peyton: If I may say so, the hon. Lady is the last person to need to feel sensitive on this subject. The numbers giving the date of birth were chosen as desirable to help in this case because they have the merit that most people remember them with a degree of accuracy.

Mr. Simeons: Would my right hon. Friend the Minister consider reverting to the old adage that a woman is as old as she looks and that a man is old when he stops looking?

Mrs. Fisher: You must be very old.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think I could possibly, with profit, intervene between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Lady was addressing the Chair.

Use Classes Order (Restaurants and Cafés)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Use Classes Order so that planning permission is required for a change of use from a shop to a restaurant or café.

Mr. Graham Page: As my hon. Friend is aware, representations about these changes of use have been considered and discussed with interested bodies; but a wider range of questions is involved in the current review of the Use Classes Order and we are not ready to make a new order.

Mr. Worsley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very disappointing reply? He told me a year ago that he had received representations from local authorities. Will he please take a decision on this in advance of the general discussion on these matters?

Mr. Page: I find it a disappointing reply too. I had hoped that we should be able to put before the House the amended Use Classes Order and the amended General Development Order at the same time. I want to do them both at once. The consultations with the local authority associations are taking a rather long time.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I do not agree with the hon. Member. It is not a disappointing reply: it is a scandalous reply. Does the Minister realise that it is nearly 12 months since he told me precisely what he has just said, namely, that he hoped to do this in a few weeks' time? I told him a few months ago that if he did not get his finger out and have the order made I would have more chop suey shops in my constituency than bus shelters, and we are now approaching that situation very rapidly.

Mr. Page: I get blamed if I do not consult the local authority associations and I get blamed if I do. I will try to keep the promise that I expect to reach a final conclusion before the Recess.

Local Government Members (Allowances)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the scale of attendance allowances to be paid to members of the new local government bodies.

Mr. Graham Page: Early next year.

Mr. Lamond: When coming to that decision will the Minister bear in mind that good government cannot be had on the cheap, and will he ensure that the allowance is sufficient to cover the costs and out-of-pocket expenses of members who may have to travel considerable distances to attend meetings of the new bodies? Since costs are escalating under the present Government, may I suggest an allowance for members of about £15 a day?

Mr. Page: We shall look to the local authority associations for advice, but it is my right hon. Friend's general intention to be generous in fixing these allowances.

Housing Accommodation (Personal Preference)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is undertaking into the type and size of accommodation of dwellings in which families prefer to live.

Mr. Amery: Surveys of the preferences of families are a major part of the


Department's continuous research into user requirements in housing. The results are published in Design Bulletins and other publications. I am sending my hon. Friend some recent examples.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer but I remind him that 99 per cent. of families prefer to live in low-level development rather than multi-storey blocks of flats, and the proportion of multi-storey blocks being built is much greater than the 1 per cent. Since it is now proved that one can have just as great densities by low-level development as by multi-storey blocks of flats, will my right hon. Friend look into the problem urgently, because research should be done to ensure that people have what they want, and they can have it if all concerned put their mind to it?

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree that the duty of both Government and local authorities is to give the widest possible choice to families. I have always advised that families with children are better housed at ground level, but our studies show that many adult households like high rise and that some older people, though by no means all, prefer the higher densities and the view which is afforded at the higher levels.

Motor Vehicles (Insurance Discs)

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make compulsory the display of insurance discs on motor vehicles.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. I doubt that this would achieve the result my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Hannam: That is a very disappointing reply. Does not my right hon. Friend agree, from the correspondence which I have sent him, that there is ample evidence that many innocent victims of car crashes are unable to obtain the necessary ownership and insurance particulars from the guilty party? Will he take steps to require the inclusion of such information about ownership and insurance on the existing Road Fund licence disc?

Mr. Peyton: That is another question. I take this opportunity to say how sorry

I was to read of my hon. Friend's unhappy experience. I am sorry to add to it by giving a disappointing answer, but I greatly doubt that the sort of thing he has in mind would be helpful. I am looking into the matter raised in his letter. If one could produce an effective answer to the problem, no one would be more pleased than I.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: But what harm is there in acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request? What is against it?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the best criterion of good regulation is that it does not do any harm, I beg leave to differ.

Road Casualties

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reduce the number of road casualties, in the light of the latest figures.

Mr. Peyton: I am greatly concerned about the recent increases in casualties. I hope that the doubling of expenditure on road safety publicity will achieve results.

Mr. Dormand: The latest figures issued, those for April, show a 6 per cent. increase over April, 1971, and the trend is always upwards. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 570 people killed on the roads in April represent the equivalent of five times the recent tragic Trident accident, and that this happens every month? Will he rid himself of his horrifying complacency in this serious situation?

Mr. Peyton: I should not begin to quarrel with anything the hon. Gentleman said until his last sentence, which, if I may say so, did a lot to spoil the effect of the rest. No one with my responsibilities is in any way, or would ever be, complacent about the brutal toll of road accidents, and I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to introduce the note he did.

Motor Vehicles (Seat Belts)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now introduce legislation to make the wearing of safety belts for front-seat passengers in motor vehicles compulsory


unless devices for the automatic harnessing of passengers coupled with the ignition and starting system are fitted, in the light of research and development into fully automatic systems.

Mr. Peyton: I would prefer first to see whether persuasion can produce a marked increase in seat belt wearing.

Mr. Osborn: What statistics does my right hon. Friend have to prove that the wearing of seat belts reduces injury after accidents? Bearing in mind that cars in the United States are now fitted with alarms which operate when the ignition is switched on and without the safety belt being in position, and bearing in mind that we in Britain have developed an automatic harness through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and the Motor Industry Research Association, would it not be cheaper to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory rather than force people to install these other systems?

Mr. Peyton: I acknowledge the weight of what my hon. Friend says. I would gladly use any device which persuaded people to wear them voluntarily. If they do not, any responsible Government, I am sure, will have to consider seriously the question of compulsion, in view of the large number of lives and serious injuries which could thereby be saved.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has the Minister seen the research, sponsored by the British Safety Council, carried out by the University of Aston in Birmingham showing that only 15 per cent. of motorists regularly wear their safety belts? Further, is he aware that even when he tried one of his so-called massive campaigns in the North-East, even that raised the level to only 25 per cent.? In the light of those two disastrous statistics, will the Minister now make the wearing of these belts compulsory?

Mr. Peyton: I cannot usefully add to what I have said.

Waste Dumping

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to control fly dumping, by compelling the owners of vehicles to identify the drivers of the said vehicles.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further action to prevent irresponsible dumping of wastes will be taken if existing powers prove inadequate.

Miss Fookes: I remind my hon. Friend that the Greater London Council already regards this as such a problem that it has included an appropriate Clause in a Private Bill. Will my hon. Friend therefore take swift action?

Mr. Griffiths: If there is a Clause in a Private Bill, it will be for the House to decide what should happen to it.

Street Lighting

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government will reduce the maximum limit of 200 yards between lights in built-up areas for all future installations; and if he will allow 30 miles per hour speed-limit signs to be placed on roads where the lights are over 100 yards apart.

Mr. Peyton: No maximum limit for the spacing of street lighting in built-up areas has been laid down. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No".

Mr. Loveridge: I am sorry to hear my right hon. Friend say that. Is he aware that in streets in which the lights are fixed at extreme distances, when such streets are used, as they sometimes are, by by passers, lorry drivers and others tend to miss the fact that they are passing through a built-up area and drive at speeds above the limit? Will my right hon. Friend change the regulations to allow 30 mph signs to be placed in such streets?

Mr. Peyton: I acknowledge that there is weight in what my hon. Friend says but I feel that one should avoid a proliferation of signs.

COLDHARBOUR HOSPITAL, SHERBORNE (FIRE)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the fire at the mental hospital, Coldharbour, Sherborne, in the early hours of this morning which resulted in the deaths of 30 patients.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): It is with deep regret that I have to inform the House of the deaths early today of 30 mentally handicapped patients in a fire at Cold-harbour Hospital, Sherborne, Dorset. The police, together with the fire department and the hospital authorities, are making immediate inquiries into this tragic accident, and I myself am going to the hospital this afternoon.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who died.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will conduct the fullest inquiry into this pathetic tragedy? Will he make it clear that the local fire services did everything possible in the circumstances? May I express my sympathy, and, I am sure, that of every hon. Member, to the relatives of the unfortunate people who died?
However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the care of patients of this sort presents very special problems? Is he satisfied that war-time constructions like this former naval hospital are suitable places for mental patients? Is he sure that the electric wiring of the huts at this hospital has been renewed since the war, and that it was wise to introduce wooden furniture into them? Will he review the priority which he gives to the construction of hospitals for people like this, especially in areas like Dorset where we enjoy a low priority, as we have seen in the case of our county hospital, because our population is not expanding very fast?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend and the House as a whole will understand that at this stage, intensely anxious though I am to discover what lies behind this tragedy, I can give virtually no information yet. But once the immediate inquiries have done their work I shall be considering what further inquiry, if necessary—and I am sure that it will be necessary—should be held and I will inform the House. All I know as a fact is that the ward involved was only recently—two months ago—opened after upgrading, and I am told—I cannot yet be sure of this—that the design and construction of the upgrading were agreed with the fire authorities.

Dr. Summerskill: I know that all hon. Members on this side of the House would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of those who died and to pay tribute to the efforts of the staff in dealing with the fire. It was a particularly tragic fire because the victims were among the most helpless and vulnerable in the community—people whom we have a particular responsibility to care for and protect.
The inquiry and the right hon. Gentleman's proposed visit are both to be welcomed, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this disaster is the latest in a series of at least four other hospital fires—at Shelton Hospital in 1968; Carlton Hayes Hospital in 1969; Exeter City Hospital in 1970; and Exe Vale Hospital in 1971? Will he bear in mind that all these fires occurred at night and in wards where elderly or mentally ill people were being looked after? Therefore, does he agree that for these categories of patient extra special and additional fire precautions are needed and that particularly vigilant night-time supervision by staff is required?

Sir K. Joseph: I must agree with all those comments. The Government have been sufficiently concerned about the position in hospitals to encourage regional hospital boards to give the question of the improvement of fire precautions very high priority. Spending on those purposes has increased sharply, and the monitoring by my Department of the fire drills and other essential procedures has been sharply tightened up.

Sir D. Renton: While acknowledging the compassion and promptness with which my right hon. Friend is acting in this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that many mentally handicapped people also suffer from physical handicaps, sometimes severe handicaps? Will he ask all persons who have residential care of the mentally handicapped to review their fire precaution arrangements without delay?

Sir K. Joseph: I have so asked. I know that regional hospital boards have followed my wishes and their own wishes, and I am sure that this latest disaster will intensify their anxiety. But I should say, before hon. Members say it to me, that we have not yet achieved the full staffing required at non-acute hospitals.


although the staffing position has improved, thanks to the extra resources found by this Government. But no one pretends that we yet have enough. I make that merely as a general background comment.

Mr. David Steel: My colleagues and I would wish to be associated with the general expressions of sympathy and regret about this appalling tragedy. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this tragedy should bring home to all of us the fact that war-time temporary hospitals, however upgraded and improved, are not adequate in 1972 and that it should increase our collective determination to secure a greater share of the nation's resources for their proper replacement?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's comments should be accepted. We have 3,000 hospitals in this country, and inevitably, however big the building programme, it will take time to renew them. The fire authorities are being asked to consider the fire vulnerability of all hospital structures, and I do not think it is inevitable that wartime building, if suitably treated, maintained and looked after in the fire sense, leaves the patients exposed in any special way.

Mr. Raison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if staff shortage proves to have been a factor in this awful disaster it cannot be right that staff shortages should be allowed to persist at a time of very high unemployment?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be misunderstood. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) made a general point, and I made a general point in reply. The proportion of staff to patients at this hospital was well above the recommended minimum ratio. I do not believe that that is so in every hospital, but it certainly was at this hospital. I merely make the general point that, although we have increased the staff, we still need more.

Mr. Crossman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that anyone who has borne his responsibility shares the dread with which he looks forward to the results of an inquiry? Will he have a look

at the report of the Shelton Hospital inquiry, which showed the gravest failings at the hospital? Will he look particularly at one problem? Has any effort yet been made to ensure that every member of staff is trained in rescue operations in the event of fire? Until that is done, these tragedies will recur incessantly while people are waiting with unfortunate, crippled people for the fire brigade to arrive, and the only hope is that members of the staff are trained in exactly what they should do if a fire occurs.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so understanding. I will certainly study the Shelton inquiry. I see that in the questionnaire which went out last year and again this year to regional hospital boards, on my instructions, one of the questions, to which all hospital authorities had to reply, was whether all nursing staff had had recent instruction in the methods of movement of patients, particularly the elderly and non-ambulant, from danger areas in an emergency, in addition to other instruction.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the results of this inquiry, and whatever the staffing position at this hospital, the risk of these continued disasters at mental and psychiatric hospitals—and not only through fire—is likely to continue when hospital staff, especially nurses, have far too many patients to look after? Is he aware of the widespread support he will have in any efforts he can make to increase the number of patients continuing in accommodation within the community so that they do not have to go into hospital but can live outside?

Sir K. Joseph: That is precisely the Government's policy, in which, I know, we have the stimulus and support of all Members of this House. It cannot be done overnight, but it is our policy and we are making progress. My understanding is that in this particular hospital the staff ratio was well above the minimum recommended, but that is one of the matters which I have to confirm on my visit.

Sir Clive Bossom: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend consider having automatic sprinklers installed in all wards


of our old mental hospitals—I have one of over 100 years old in my constituency—and also an electrical system which automatically opens all locked doors when a fire breaks out?

Sir K. Joseph: I would like to consider my hon. Friend's suggestions in the light of what comes out of this tragedy.

Mr. Pavitt: I would like to share in the tributes which have been paid by hon. Members to the staff, and to all the devoted staffs in these hospitals, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he makes his investigation, to look not only at the staffing establishment but also at the ratio of disposal of staff within each establishment—the ratio of disposal ward to ward and at different times of the day—and will he, arising from this tragedy, not only consult fire officers and so on but also bring into play people in the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees, who have a considerable amount of practical knowledge which may be of assistance?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[12th ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress 4th July.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

New Clause 11

DECLARATION OF THE ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT

It is hereby declared that nothing in the Treaties or in this Act shall detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament or shall prejudice the power and right of Parliament to repeal this Act or to alter any of its provisions or effects; and any determination of the European Court or of any of the Communities or their institutions which is inconsistent herewith shall be null and void.—[Sir Elwyn Jones.]

Brought up and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We meet to discuss this important and fundamental Clause against what seems to be an extraordinary challenge not only to our parliamentary sovereignty but even to our national sovereignty by the President of France, who seems to think that it is he who should settle our exchange rate and not the Government of this country. No doubt we shall be returning to this interesting theme at some suitable moment in time.
At first blush in considering this Clause, which I have the privilege to move, it may seem to be astonishing in this year of grace 1972 that it should be necessary to make such a declaration as is contained in the Clause when the British doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is the political and legal concept at the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy. It is an article of faith sustained by the sacrifices of the Civil War and the overthrow of two tyrannical Stuart Sovereigns, matured by centuries of commitment adhered to in the House of Commons by generations


of our predecessors. We, as the Members of Parliament sent here by our constituents, are its guardians and its trustees.
The question which, I submit, arises in this debate on this new Clause is: is this Bill the requiem of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty? We ask—and it is our duty to ask at the very end of the Committee stage of the Bill—whether the Government accept that if this Bill becomes law our courts will still be free and able to accept the present doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, whether our judges will still be entitled to regard it as their duty to give unquestioning obedience to the will of Parliament as expressed in an Act of Parliament and a later Act of Parliament which may amend or repeal an earlier Act. Will the judges, I ask, still be able to sustain the position that the latest expression of Parliament's will is in law supreme? Or will our judges be expected to apply the new principle of primacy of Community law which, speaking in one voice, as distinct from what they say in another, Ministers have so desperately sought to entrench in this Bill?
They are irreconcilable conceptions, the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of Community law. Irreconcilable, too, are Ministers' statements in regard to them. On the one hand, on more than one occasion the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has sought to assure us that, of course, nothing in this Bill abridges the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. That is the very language we have embodied in the new Clause, and presumably the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that voice, will be ready to accept it.
The Government's White Paper of 1971 said:
There is no question of any erosion of national sovereignty.
If they believe that, then, presumably, the Government will support the new Clause. If they do, we shall be reassured. It will be taken as a mark of their good faith, and some indication that they mean what, in that voice, they have said. It will put the position beyond doubt. We think it right, as lawyers say, ex abundante cautela, for the purpose of establishing it as a matter beyond doubt, and for the avoidance of doubt, that it

should be stated expressly in this Bill. It will be a kind of constitutional fail-safe provision if that is done.
It is necessary to do it for three reasons: first, because of the contradictory ministerial statements on this fundamental matter, which have left it in a state of uncertainty; second, because the European Court decisions have rejected the conception of parliamentary sovereignty in the field of Community law; third, because if the Bill becomes law as it stands it will leave the law of this land in a state of uncertainty as to which of the irreconcilable conceptions which I have mentioned our courts will be expected to apply.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told us that there is no need to worry about the future; we can easily undo what we have so painfully done. He has not put it quite like that, but that is the effect. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I prefer the authority of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, whose name is to be conjured with in this honourable House. He considered this matter in June of last year in the case of Blackburn v. Attorney-General. The Master of the Rolls said:
It does appear that if this country should go into the Common Market and sign the Treaty of Rome, it means that we will have taken a step which is irreversible. The sovereignty of these islands will thenceforward be limited. It will not be ours alone but will be shared with others.
The Master of the Rolls returned to this point later in the judgment—and I make no apology for citing the judgment in the Court of Appeal at a little length—when he said:
We have all been brought up to believe that, in legal theory, one Parliament cannot bind another and that no Act is irreversible.
That is the line that has been taken by some Ministers:
But legal theory does not always march alongside political reality. Take the Statute of Westminster 1931, which takes away the power of Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse that Statute? Take the Acts which have granted independence to Dominions and territories overseas. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse those laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom once given cannot be taken away. Legal theory must give way to practical politics.


The Master of the Rolls then cited Lord Sankey in a 1935 case:
…the Imperial Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. But that is theory and has no relation to realities.
Lord Denning went on to say:
What are the realities here? If Her Majesty's Ministers sign this treaty and Parliament enacts provisions to implement it, I do not envisage that Parliament would afterwards go back on it and try to withdraw from it. But, if Parliament should do so, then I say we will consider that event when it happens. We will then say whether Parliament can lawfully do it or not.
Lord Denning cited an article by Professor H. W. R. Wade, which said:
sovereignty is a political fact for which no purely legal authority can be constituted…".
The Master of the Rolls concluded:
That is true. We must wait to see what happens before we pronounce on sovereignty in the Common Market.
That is the state of total uncertainty about the matter. That is the alarming conclusion to which one comes from that statement of the Master of the Rolls. In his view, Parliament is embarked upon irreversible action, not something that can be changed overnight, and that is the grim significance of our debate today and of our discussions throughout the passage of the European Communities Bill.
It therefore seems that if in due course a judicial decision comes to be made by the courts on an Act of Parliament which purports, for instance, to repeal the Bill after it has become an Act, unless we do something about it in the Bill the matter will be left in a state of total uncertainty. The terms of the Bill are, therefore, crucial, and in our view, which I suspect will be shared on both sides of the Committee, inclusion of the new Clause will be clear guidance to our courts that, whatever future course political events may take, our judges will still be able to say if the matter is put to the test in court that the latest expression of Parliament's will is in law supreme. In that sense, fiat justitia, ruat coelum. If the new Clause is passed, the judges will know where they stand; so will Parliament; so will the people of this country.
The new Clause is also necessary because the Community treaties give little indication of the Community's actual legal nature. The Luxembourg Court has filled

in and supplied the details. The court's case law has expressed it. There is an interesting article on this theme by Mr. David Hall, a solicitor, who was until recently a member of the Commission's legal service, in a Community hand-out, "European Community, No. 6" of June, 1972. He expressed it in this way:
It is the case law which, for instance, confirms that the Community legal order has priority over national law with which it conflicts—even over subsequent national legislation.
There is no doubt how the European Court regards the matter. It takes the view that Community regulations must be uniformly applied, and may not be modified or capable of modification by member States. Several cases have been cited in Committee to illustrate this matter. I have come across another one, which, so far as I recollect, has not yet been mentioned. It is on the somewhat unedifying subject of turkey tails, which in my part of the country used irreverently to be called parsons' noses. It is the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Oberelbe v. Firma Paul C. Bollman.
By Regulation 22 the Community had imposed a common customs tariff on certain goods. Mr. Bollman was a German importer of turkey tails from the United States. Regulation 22 did not, however, contain sufficient elucidation whether turkey tails were to be regarded as "backs", "edible offal" or "other parts of domestic poultry". Each classification allowed a different levy to be imposed.
Mr. Bollman claimed that the turkey tails were "edible offal" but the German Government and the European Commission claimed that they were "backs". The German Government also considered that they had a national power of interpretation because the Community regulations were not clear.
The European Court clearly indicated that the German Government did not have any power at all to deal with this matter:
Regulation 22 is directly applicable in all the member States. In the absence of provisions to the contrary, the member States are prohibited from adopting measures for the implementation of the regulation intended to modify its scope or add to its provisions…they no longer have the power to make legislative provisions in this field.
The member States were not empowered by Regulation 22 and their


national authorities were therefore unable—
to make binding rules of interpretation for the application of these definitions.
The court finally decided that edible offal should be interpreted to include "turkey tails".
As I have said, this is not a very exciting or important illustration, but it is the way of the law that great principles are often decided upon trivial issues of fact and on cases of no great importance. It would clearly seem from that decision that the power of the Community regulation is indeed very sweeping, and, according to the European Court in the Bollman case, the Community regulation would override any present, or, what is perhaps more significant and important, any future national legislation which was in conflict with it.
This, then, is the state of the matter. Our own courts are left in a state where they may not find it right, least of all necessary, to apply the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
One of our most eminent judges has expressed the view which I have adopted on this matter. In my submission, it is absolutely imperative that there should now go out as the clearest possible statement of the constitutional position that nothing in the treaties or in this Act shall detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of this Parliament. If this is rejected by the Government, it will put in doubt the whole of their good faith in this matter. If it is accepted it will at least be some comfort.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in his request for certainty, and indeed that is all the Clause asks for. The situation that will face a judge if a subsequent Parliament attempts to repeal this legislation will be quite intolerable. The judge will be told in this legislation that he is to interpret Community law and is to regard it as superior to English law—or, for that matter, Scots or Northern Irish law. Yet it will be possible for a Parliament to wish to repeal this legislation. It will be possible for the simple reason that the legislation will have been passed without

the consent of the people of this country. Therefore, since it is quite likely at some future date that a future Government might wish to repeal it, this is a possibility we must consider.
It may be that the supporters of this Measure believe that eventually the people of Britain will settle down as happy members of a prosperous European Community. In that case the matter will never arise. But it is possible, to put it no higher, that the alternative may occur. The people of this country may object to being taxed and to having laws passed for them by a private body which is not elected by anybody. Unless those institutions are altered, they may wish to repeal this legislation.
The situation of a judge in such circumstances would be intolerable unless this Clause were incorporated in the Bill. The judge will be told that Community law is superior to British law. He has then to say to himself that it is clear that under Community law the Treaty of Rome and its attendant treaties are well nigh irrevocable. They are not strictly irrevocable. They could be revoked, but only by the unanimous consent of all the 10 parties to the treaty. That unanimous consent is unlikely to be given. Barring that unlikely situation, the treaties are irrevocable. They have no term, no time limit and, by the ordinary rules of international law, cannot be revoked except in the circumstance which I mentioned.
It is clear from the decisions of the Court of the European Community that Community law is to be regarded as superior to the law of the subordinate States of the Communities. It is also clear that no one of those States can unilaterally revoke its adherence to the Communities once it is given. Yet what will be the situation facing a judge in this situation? He will be told that the repealing legislation has been enacted by the direct will of the people since it is they who elected the Government which produced the legislation, that both Houses of Parliament have passed the Bill, that it has received the Royal Assent and has become an Act. The ancient traditions of English law say that that is superior to anything.
In those circumstances a judge will be in exactly the situation of the judiciary


in the reign of Henry VIII. The argument was then not whether people were Catholics or Protestants, but it was about the Act of Supremacy. It was about the simple issue of whether any other system of law should prevail in England than the English system of law.
Henry VIII had no objection to people believing in the doctrines of the Catholic Church on matters that one may describe as purely religious. He did not object to people going into Catholic churches and adhering to their religion by the ceremonials appropriate to that church. That was not the issue. Indeed, he did that himself. The simple issue was whether there was another system of law superior to English law also operating in England which was allied with another legislature, the Papacy, and with another court, the Court of the Papacy.
In that case, although for centuries there had been two systems of law operating in this country. Parliament decided unilaterally that one of them should cease to be obeyed in this country. The decision has always been held to be correct in English law. It is equally clear that at the time it was quite improper and illegal in canon law. It was a decision that was ultimately imposed by force and, in the minds of many highly rational and sensitive men, it was difficult for them to reconcile with their consciences.
The most notable example has a great connection with Westminster Hall and relates to the case of Sir Thomas More, or St. Thomas More as he now is to the Catholic Church. He was tried, and in due course executed, simply for facing that difficulty. He felt that he could not in his conscience say that he would pay allegiance to a king and a legislature as supreme when he had been brought up to believe, and had operated as Lord Chancellor of England in the belief, that that was not the situation. Eventually it became the law not by strictly legal means but by force, and the head of Thomas More fell as a result.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Sir Thomas More was a martyr to his belief in the supremacy of canon law in England rather than to his belief that the faith of the Roman Catholic Church was

correct and that what he was required to subscribe to was incorrect? If he is suggesting that, he is producing an historical theory unknown to any specialist in this subject.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will realise that he is making a distinction without a difference. Sir Thomas More was presented with two alternative sets of beliefs. If taken as a set of religious beliefs, they also incorporated a complete legal system which is operaable in every State throughout Christendom. Those who accepted the beliefs of the Catholic Church had to accept that. Alternatively, one could take the view which was prevalent earlier in the Middle Ages, that the Papacy was of less importance than the Church as a whole in some abstract sense.
However, I do not think we need get too involved in the intricacies of mediaeval theology. We may put our judges not in a theologically difficult situation but in a situation of rather difficult law. They will eventually be brought up in the systems of Community Law, two separate situations will apply and they will be left to make the decision. I suggest, therefore, that with this Clause my right hon. and learned Friend is putting certainty into the Bill where at the moment there is a simple gap.
If the Government did not wish to accept the Clause the alternative would be to say that in future this Parliament was limiting itself, and to say so in explicit terms. But surely this Parliament should decide specifically on that issue. I should prefer to add "the people" as well, but apparently they are not to be allowed to have their say. In any event, we should not produce a Statute which omits one essential fact, which is what is to happen if a subsequent Parliament wishes to repeal or—it may be—even only to amend it. Are we really to leave that to the discretion of a few individual judges appointed and deliberately given a position of independence because they are not supposed to be representatives of the country in the way that the Legislature is? It is not a decision which should be left vaguely open to them. It should be made here and now by the House of Commons.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In my view, the hon. Mem-


ber for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has correctly reminded the Committee that the principle of the supremacy of Parliament goes back even further in our history, and has claimed even more sacrifices, than the revolutions and conflicts of the seventeenth and later centuries.
I shall support the Second Reading of the Clause because I believe that the intentions behind it and the assertion which it means to embody are vital and ought to be upheld. Yet the Clause carries within it a fatal paradox, though that paradox in turn proves how wrong and unjustified is the action of the House of Commons in passing the Bill before us—assuming that it does so.
There is an omission in the drafting of the Clause. It does not say whether it is to apply to itself. It does not include the words "including this part of the Act" or the words "excluding this part of the Act." It is of the very nature of parliamentary supremacy that either of those provisions—whichever way the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) had attempted to draft the Clause—would ultimately be futile. The assertion of the supremacy of Parliament is the assertion that any Act of Parliament, small or great, or any part of any Act, including this part, is at the mercy of the decision of a subsequent Parliament so long as Parliament remains supreme.
In this respect we differ from nations which have written constitutions. If we were debating this matter within the terms of a written constitution, we could frame a Clause as a part of the constitution and entrench it so that special procedures had to be gone through and special safeguards observed if ever in future it was to be altered or abrogated. That would be the position in the United States. Congress is not supreme in the sense in which Parliament is supreme. Congress is subordinate to the constitution of the United States, the constitution is not subordinate to Congress. In this country the living reality is Parliament itself. In a sense, our constitution is an abstraction: it is what is said about, and what attempts to describe, the living reality of Parliament.
However, the existence of this contradiction at the heart of the Clause reveals its significance in a political sense. In this country the guarantee of the

supremacy of Parliament and of our legislative independence as a nation does not lie in words on paper. It does not lie in vellum and parchments. It lies in a political will and the continued exercise of that will, the political will of those of whom the House of Commons is the expression. The people themselves, their political will and their determination to exert it, are the ultimate guarantee, and the only ultimate guarantee, of the sovereignty of this House and of the legislative and political independence of the nation.
That fact, which I do not believe can be contested, is the reason why to pass this Bill lies outside that unwritten contract which all Members of this House have with those who sent them here. We have not been charged by that political will, on which alone rests the independence and sovereignty of Parliament and of this country, with the duty or the permission to share it or to abrogate it.
4.15 p.m.
The longer we have debated these proposals, the clearer that has become. Even here, no one in the Committee can say that as the House of Commons over these many sittings has learned to know the European Communities Bill better, it has come to like it better. There has been no gradual reconcilement on the part of Members of this House to what is here being done. Indeed, though this must be subjective, I venture to assert the contrary. As we have had an opportunity, however limited, to familiarise ourselves with the implications and the consequences of what the Bill makes possible, the reluctance with which a narrowly divided Committee is doing what it is doing has become more, not less, perceptible. The relief with which hon. Members think they are about to part with the Committee stage is not untinged with the feeling that it is a business in which on either side of the Committee and on either side of the debate they are sad to have imbrued their hands.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Powell: In their own consciences my hon. Friends must speak for themselves. But if it be open to dispute what these digital majorities betoken—under all the influences of power and patronage, which we well know operate in this


House, and amid all the cross-currents which we understand and are familiar with—whatever be the judgment of the atmosphere here, there can be no doubt about the sense out of doors. The most determined attempts which have been made month after month by all forms of persuasion to shake the political disinclination of the great body of the people towards what is being done by this Bill have proved unsuccessful.
Whether it has been presented on the one hand as a fait accompli, as something which is over and done, something which is all over bar the shouting, which people must make shift to get used to, or whether it has been presented in the most glowing colours as new opportunity, as accretion of sovereignty or power, the great mass of the people, whose sovereign expression in this House is at stake, have remained unmoved. The only practical effect of this long Committee stage has been to expose to those outside even more clearly what is at stake. Their reaction to that clearer understanding, to which perhaps our debates have contributed, is such that it is a usurpation for a House of Commons, well knowing the state of opinion in the country, to seek by the Bill to surrender or diminish the sovereignty of Parliament, and the ultimate authority of our courts, including the High Court of Parliament over the subject in all matters and causes.
That act of usurpation could hardly have been attempted at a more unfortunate time; for this is a time when the rule of law—the acceptance by the country of law made in this House—is being questioned as perhaps it has not been questioned for decades, if not generations, past. There is an Act on the Statute Book of the last Session, the Industrial Relations Act. Whatever our differing opinions of that Act may be, I say without fear of contradiction that if it does not prove acceptable, credible and tolerable to those in their hundreds of thousands, their millions, who are to be bound by it, it cannot in the long run remain upon the Statute Book. I say that as one who, apart from certain aspects of the Act, hopes that its provisions will prove to be acceptable, intelligible and workable; but that does not alter what I think is an axiom, that the validity of what we

do here depends in the last resort on the political will and consent of the people. If that is not forthcoming, if it is denied or withdrawn, then we cannot protest: "But it is an Act; we have passed it." If the people do not share our view, they have the right, and they must have the power—through our successors or through us—to dispose otherwise.
If that be true, as I think it must be, of a relatively subordinate piece of legislation—though I do not underestimate its importance—how much more must it be true of a Bill like this, which is the sole parliamentary expression of a deliberate and, in intention, permanent cession and abridging of the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the country? Over that matter the ultimate decision lies, and must lie, with the people at large.
So the question arises, since that is the reality, the true and the sole entrenched protection of our independence and sovereignty: can they and will they?
All belief in democracy, above all in parliamentary democracy, is an act of faith, as the maintenance of all free institutions is an act of faith. It depends on the faith that the political will of the people is capable of self-expression and of impressing itself upon those free institutions and ultimately moulding them to its will. If that be not so, then democracy and Parliament and all their theory are empty husks. So it is a question of faith whether the people will defend, are determined to defend, have the desire and purpose to defend, or, if it is lost, to restore and regain, the supremacy of Parliament and the political independence of this country.
What is certain is that if they will, they can. We know already that when this Parliament has run its course, one of the two great parties in the state will be continuing in the face of the electorate, and indeed of Europe and the world, the same opposition, and on the same grounds, to this proposal and to this legislation. Yet it is in a deeper sense than this that the electorate, the people of this country, will still have, if they care to exert it, the choice and the power. On a question such as this, public opinion exerts itself not through the exclusive channel of a single political party—it exercises its effect upon all parties. If that will, to


which I have referred, is present over the coming months, even though the Bill should be forced through, even though the treaty should be ratified, it will still lie with the opinion of the people—through their sovereign power over us here, through our duty to render an account to them—to regain if it has been lost, and to restore if it has been diminished, their sovereignty, of which we are only the explicit expression.
When I vote for the Clause I shall be giving my personal vote for the maintenance of that sovereignty and independence. I do so recognising that the question will be decided not in the Lobby when we come to vote, not even by the House of Commons at all. It is a question which will be decided by the people.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has a great capacity for speaking with power and logic. However, the logic leads to the wrong apocalyptic conclusions in the end.
I shall start by quoting twice, once from the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and once from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The difficulty is that many of the things which they said are fundamentally and basically true, but many of the conclusions which they drew from their axiomatics were wrong.
First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that legal theory does not always march beside political theory. That is well reflected in the new Clause. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that our sovereignty—I paraphrase him slightly—does not ultimately rest upon vellum or parchment but political will. That is true as well. The new Clause is not talking about terms; it is talking about principles. There is no question about that. I will return to that matter. If the official Opposition from the Labour Party is "Not on Tory terms", I should point out that this is not about Tory terms; this is about the principles of the institutions and whether one accepts the idea or not.
4.30 p.m.
What is meant by the "ultimate sovereignty" of Parliament? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-

West said that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament rests upon the will, the consent, of the people. That we accept. The problem always is: how do we arrive at such consent? That is a perennial problem.
When we here talk about the sovereignty of Parliament, we are presumably talking not about the sovereignty of the Front Benches, but about that of the back benches—the sovereignty of the capacity of the individual back bench Member of Parliament to influence the executive. After all, the executive is the replacement of the various kings who were quoted earlier in historical references. The executive now is the Treasury Bench. It has the power.
The new Clause presumably means what is says, and it says,
nothing in the Treaties or in this Act shall detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament".
We are talking about the ultimate sovereignty not of the Treasury Bench but of Parliament.
What is the reality? The reality, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was reaching over and to, is that, again to use his expression, both the great parties in this country believe in strong government. That is a fact. They believe in a strong executive. That is a fact as well.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who, after all, is poacher turned gamekeeper, may interrupt on that point, but it is a fact. It will not detract from what I am saying.
If I talk about electoral reform to a Conservative or a Socialist, he will decry it. Why? He will not decry the argument simply because there might be a notional increase in Liberal support. He will say, "If you have a change in the electoral system it may lead to a more fluid situation. It may lead to that most dreadful of things, coalitions. It will result in a flexible situation." A flexible situation in a democracy means less power for the Executive. That is why the two great parties are opposed to any such change.

Mr. Foot: What I was dissenting from in the hon. Gentleman's argument was that I believe that one of the major matters about which we have been arguing in these debates is whether we shall yield a whole series of powers from the legislature to the executive and to executives outside this country. That has been a major matter of dispute. In that dispute the Labour Party has been defending the rights of the legislature while the Liberal Party has been consorting and colluding with the Government in surrendering powers to the Executive.

Mr. Johnston: I will not go into the question of consorting with the Chancellor of the Duchy at the moment. I will return to this point in a few minutes. This is certainly a profound argument and I want to deal with it.
If all the sound and fury which at the moment is being directed theoretically, despite what the hon. Gentleman has just said, on behalf of the back bencher against the Front Benches and against these notionally oppressive Community institutions, were directed rather at examining our own systems of arriving at decisions, I should respect those objections much more.
How does a back bench Member of Parliament affect the executive? How does he influence it? Everybody agrees that he can be a very good long-stop social worker, but his problem—

Mr. Eric Deakins: Untrained social worker.

Mr. Johnston: I accept that. The point is that his capacity to influence the policy of the executive is very limited in the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I repeat, it is very limited in the House of Commons. There is no use balking that fact. I willingly concede that it will be even more difficult when we enter the Common Market. However, we should direct ourminds to looking at ways in which we can improve this participation and influence rather than at knocking down notional bogies.
When I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy at Question Time on Monday whether it should be possible or desirable for Members of Parliament to go to Brussels frequently to talk to the Commission, he got up and, with a bland smile, urbanely said:

I am all in favour of hon. and right hon. Members…going to Brussels as frequently as possible."—[Official Report, 3rd July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 9.]
That is fine and dandy. But Members of Parliament cannot afford to go regularly. Unless we do something practical to change that, they will not go. We should bear that in mind. There is the question of Select Committees and many other things.
I want to move on to other arguments apart from a change in the electoral system. Whenever I hear people shouting about referenda for the Common Market, I am reminded of people—for example, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East(Mr. Benn)—whose sudden conversion to this idea has not been paralleled with any interest in general in electoral reform from what I can see. This does not impress me at all. Equally as important as electoral reform is how the ancient nations of Wales and Scotland should, could or may express their corporate will and protect their communal interests within an enlarged Community. We have heard nothing of this, even from the mover of the new Clause, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South who is himself a Welshman. We heard nothing about effective decentralisation.
I want to make four brief points. First, I will return to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. A new Clause which questions the whole concept of supranationalism questions the Community per se. [Interruption.] I repeat, any new Clause which questions the idea of supranationalism, as this does, questions the idea of the Community. Therefore, it is not logical for the Leader of the Opposition to go to Vienna and to say, "We are not against the idea; it is these incompetent, inefficient, dreadful Tory terms we are against". That attitude of mind is one thing and one can argue about it, but it is very different from the attitude of mind in the new Clause.

Mr. Peter Shore: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the attitude of the Opposition on this matter, I must remind him that the words in the new Clause are taken from the repeated affirmations of the Government. I very much doubt whether ultimate sovereignty will be unaffected by the proposition of


entry, but it does not lie with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that, because he has assured the House in the White Paper and elsewhere, that that is precisely his belief. What does the hon. Gentleman say to that?

Mr. Johnston: I say that if we enter the Community we are agreeing to share sovereignty and that changes its nature. Whether it increases or decreases our degree of influence is another argument, but its nature undoubtedly changes.
The old well-worn argument which presumably will be used by the Government against the new Clause is that of the veto in the Luxembourg Agreement.

Mr. English: There is not one.

Mr. Johnston: There is not one. All right. Nevertheless, at the end of the day we come back to the political realities about which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South spoke. The political realities are that if a situation arose in which something was totally unacceptable in this country, it would be rejected.
That is the political reality, but if one goes into the Community arguing, as the new Clause does, that national institutions must in all circumstances have preference and triumph over supranational institutions, that is contrary to the European idea. If someone does that, he should not have applied to go in in the first place.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman go further and agree that anybody who supported any of the applications made by this country did so in the obvious knowledge that there must be some sacrifice of the ultimate sovereignty of this House?

Mr. Johnston: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—

Mr. Donald Stewart: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so soon after he has given way, but he said that anything that would not be accepted would simply be rejected. How far did Scotland get in this Parliament with any of the breaches of the Treaty of Union against which she protested? The hon. Gentleman knows that none of the breaches was ever repaired.

Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first question is that neither I nor the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would regard entry into Europe as a sacrifice, but rather as an accretion. The answer to the second question is contained in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We are talking about political reality, and if feeling in Scotland had supported what was written on the vellum of the Treaty of Union then something would have been done about it.
The third point is about sovereignty, and this again bears on what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It is all very well talking about de jure power. There is also de facto power, and both major protagonists recognised this essentially in what they said. Let us consider, for example, three countries—Finland, Rhodesia and Mexico. All those countries, de jure, have sovereignty. What is the sovereignty of Finland? How is it influenced by Russia? What is the sovereignty of Rhodesia? How is it influenced by South Africa? What is the sovereignty of Mexico? How is it influenced by the United States of America? We must take cognisance of the fact that whatever one may have written on this piece of vellum—and it is a good expression used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—external influences are affected by the power which surrounds them.
If we do not enter the EEC, oddly and paradoxically enough we shall be engaged upon a de facto limitation of our sovereignty—I say that quite consciously—because we should find ourselves wedged between Europe and the United States of America.

Mr. George Cunningham: Power has nothing to do with sovereignty.

Mr. Johnston: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, but my view is that power has everything to do with sovereignty. Power is what sovereignty is about. There is no point in claiming theoretical sovereignty unless one has power to ensure that it is exercised.

Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman goes on talking nonsense, he must expect to be interrupted. Of course power and sovereignty belong together, but there is a conceptual distinction. The new


Clause is about legalities and sovereignty, not about power, and it is important to maintain that distinction.

Mr. Johnston: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman, who started in a clear and didactical way to suggest that I was talking nonsense, to conceptualise distinctions; one can always do that. But the basic answer is that if we do not enter the EEC, in the end we shall engage in a reduction of our sovereignty.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

I said that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, for all the pertinence of many of the things that he says and the framework of logic which he builds around them, is arguing an apocalyptical view of life, that it is a choice between his way and the other way which leads almost immediately to Armageddon. I sometimes wonder why there is all this worry anyway because, on balance, I should have thought that the chance of out-and-out conflict between members within the Community was minimal. We depend very much upon each other. During the years that the Community has been in existence there have been arguments—there always will be—but there is no point in entering the Community if one goes in thinking that one will get one's own way all the time.

Mr. Michael Foot: Pompidou's way.

Mr. Johnston: Pompidou may be a bright star on the political horizon now, but in 15 years it may be somebody else. It may be a latter-day British Premier.

Mr. Michael Foot: Whether Pompidou stays or not, he has said that the only terms upon which we can enter the Common Market are that we agree that there shall be a monetary union, with control over our exchange rates, and even if Pompidou goes that provision will stay.

Mr. Johnston: With respect, that is yet another example of a situation that has arisen, recently, in this case about exchange rates. This question will be discussed heatedly for three, four or perhaps six months. If someone bases his attitude and outlook upon a whole policy

which is to stretch forward for 15, 20 or 30 years on such an issue, in my view that is a most unwise way for him to proceed.
If we are becoming paranoiac about sovereignty, going into the Community is not a good venture to embark upon, but if we approach this as a joint venture for mutual benefit then it will be constructive and to our advantage. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is right in saying that the political will of a nation affects what it can do. I believe that our political will in Europe must be to work for co-operation and not to work for some kind of Little Englanderism.

Mr. Selwyn Gumme: r: Already in this debate we have heard three kinds of arguments for adding this particular and specific restriction to the Bill.
I suggest that the Committee should address itself to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who used a mystical argument. He suggested that there was a will of the people, and that the interpretation of that political will allowed him to believe that on this issue, it being so great an issue, the House of Commons has no right to restrict or to share its sovereignty. I believe that my right hon. Friend was asking us not just to accept the concept of a will but to concept his interpretation of it.
That is an argument which my right hon. Friend has previously invited the House, and people outside it, to accept. When he has done it in other areas of policy, members of the Opposition have attacked him violently and have said that he has no right to abrogate to himself the ability to discern and to articulate the will of the people of Britain. They are right to attack him on that ground, and we are also right to disagree with him on the same basis. My right hon. Friend claims that he, and he alone, can feel what the people of Britain think on these basic issues—[Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members will allow the discussion to proceed.
It will be seen that the danger of the argument based on the will of the people is that the interpretation of that will is the key factor. We can all say that the people want this or that the people want that, but we in this country have a method


of determining the will of the people—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—and it is called democracy. It is done by the election of a Government, and the decision of the people has been to elect a Government and a Parliament which decided in this House by an overwhelming majority that they supported our entry into the European Economic Community.
The fact is that if people believe in parliamentary sovereignty—those who have tabled the Clause do so believe—it is curious for them to howl when it is suggested that the first element in parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament may make up its mind. That is what we are proceeding to do now. As we are making up our mind, it is right, first of all, to refuse to accept that kind of dangerous, mystical argument.
But then we are presented with the historical argument. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is not here at the moment, because I believe that in seeking to lam Sir Thomas More with having laid his head on the block in defence of the principle of the superiority of Roman canon law over English law he was, if historically inaccurate, trying to make a comparison which is most important. But what is important about this incident is that when Henry VIII said "The law of England shall be supreme" the law of England was supreme. But it was supreme not because he won the legal argument, not because he chopped off Anne Boleyn's head, but because he was powerful enough to make it supreme.
Therefore, the lesson of history is not that there is some kind of comparative situation which can be imported into the present situation and from which we can learn detailed applications, but that sovereignty is, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) pointed out, so closely connected with power as to be not usefully distinguishable; and that, much as one may say that we have sovereignty over this country, it is a question of limited sovereignty inside or outside the Common Market.
It is here that we come to the practical argument—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Gentleman said that the people had

been consulted, but perhaps he can tell the Committee two things. First, have the people been consulted at all as to this great step which the Government are contemplating taking? Second, if they have been consulted, have they ever come to a decision on whether this Parliament can fetter its successors?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Member had been present throughout the Committee debates he would realise that that argument has been thoroughly thrashed out, and that what we are now discussing is the question of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy involves the concept that the people's representatives in this House of Parliament shall decide, and that if the people dislike what their representatives have decided they shall kick them out on their ears, or on any other part of the anatomy which the hon. Gentleman likes to pick. At the next General Election the hon. Gentleman will see that the people of Britain will, if he is right, kick me out, or if I am right, they will kick him out.
But it was on the practical argument that the hon. Gentleman interrupted me. The practical argument, he says, is that it may be well to say that the mystical argument is wrong and that the historical argument is inappropriate but, practically speaking, once we have passed this Bill we cannot change it. The argument is that this is a Bill so important that we really must treat it as being in a category wholly dissimilar from any category we have ever thought of before.
First of all, there is a practical fact which we ought not to forget, and it was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He said that at the next General Election one great political party will say to the electorate "We do not accept this Bill. We will at best modify it fundamentally"; and if the members of that political party really want to lose that election by 200 seats they will say "We will remove it entirely."

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: But perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that they are in fact saying that if elected they will wait a year, then hold a referendum, and then decide what they will do.

Mr. Gummer: Whichever technique they decide to adopt, all techniques are based on the belief—the clear, unadulterated belief—that if members of that party wish they can amend, change, throw out or utterly dispense with this Measure. That is what they believe. They are totally of that opinion. If that is so, the most that can be said for the Clause is that it is not necessary.
That, indeed, was the tenor of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). It was a moderate and reasonable speech, in which he said to the Government "You know, this is an extra help. There are some people who are worried about the precise interpretation"—but not, of course, the Labour Party. There may be a certain judge, but not the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is perfectly clear, and has said so repeatedly, that he has no intention of forgetting to fight when we have the Third Reading: he will fight, fight and fight again against the proposal. He believes that if he wins he will not win just a paper victory; that it will not be only on paper that he can withdraw the Bill, but that he can withdraw it in fact. We are therefore restricted in the number of people who are worried and concerned to members of the legal profession as interpreted and presented by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South.
But what was Lord Denning's argument? It was an argument not on legal fact but. as he distinguished, on legal fact in the context of political situation. He suggested that it is inconceivable that a Government having given freedom to countries which were once our own could then withdraw that freedom. It may be inconceivable to Lord Denning but hon. Members can think of a number of situations in which that action could be possible. Let us say, for example, that we had given total independence to Gibraltar, and the people of Gibraltar then said, "We do not want to be totally independent. We think that we are safer if you legislate for us." Does any right hon. or hon. Member believe that we could not then withdraw the Gibraltar Independence Bill and replace it by a Gibraltar Non-Independence Bill? That would be quite possible and it is a serious point—but extremely unlikely.

5.0 p.m.

If we come into the realms of likelihoods and unlikelihoods, if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that it is unlikely that anyone would want to go to the trouble or, indeed, to the lack of trouble—whichever point at which it was done—of reversing the Bill, we are on a totally different argument. We are not then saying that it is impossible or that it might be impossible but that it might be very inconvenient. If that is the argument, that the special nature of the Bill is such that it is such a wide ranging Bill that it is the kind of Bill which is difficult to repeal, that is an argument which restricts the sovereignty of the House of Commons enormously because it says that the only sorts of Bills that the House of Commons ought to pass are Bills which are very easy to repeal, and that the more difficult a Bill is to repeat, the more unlikely it is that the House of Commons should be asked to pass it.

Mr. Shore: That is silly.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is silly. If it is silly, the right hon. Gentleman should never have proposed that the major argument against the Bill—I think that we all agreed about this at the end of our last discussion of this matter—is not that it is in essence irrepealable but that it would be extremely difficult to repeal. If one carries that argument to its logical conclusion we would never have agreed to the NATO treaty and we would never have joined NATO. Although that was a 20-year agreement, it was one under which, without Parliament agreeing, our forces could go to the aid of any member State attacked, without even an affirmative Resolution, no matter whether we agreed to that. That would be very difficult to reverse.
It is here that we ought to look at sovereignty a little more closely. Why is it so difficult to reverse the NATO treaty? It is because this country has so much sovereignty that it cannot, on its own, defend itself. When we are arguing about sovereignty in this ancient House of Commons we are arguing about it in a unique situation because for about 30 years Britain alone has not been able to defend herself. If, therefore, we say that our sovereignty is the ultimate


sovereignty of Parliament, as the tanks roll in—as they would if it were not for alliance and the automatic nature of the NATO agreement—that is an ultimate sovereignty which is a misuse of the word "ultimate". It is at the very least a conditional, constrained and corralled sovereignty. We ought to decide whether by "sovereignty" we mean the high-flown mystical belief that the House of Commons can will and, having willed, do anything it wants to do. I believe that we all know that that sort of sovereignty has not existed since the days of the Empire.

Mr. Powell: Ever.

Mr. Gummer: Even if it has never been ours, sovereignty has always been in some senses not ultimate. If we are merely arguing that the House of Commons can agree to anything whether or not it can do it, we could do that whether or not we pass the Bill or whether we meet only on alternate Fridays. We could always pass anything if that was all it meant. But if by "sovereignty"' we mean that the House of Commons has the ability to do certain things it wishes to do and that no law or no outside authority can arbitrarily fetter it in what it can physically do, that sort of sovereignty is the kind about which we ought to be talking.

Mr. Powell: I think that my hon. Friend is confusing sovereignty with omnipotence. Every country, sovereign or not, is limited in what it can do. But sovereignty is concerned with whether there is another human political authority which can, not by force but legally, override the resolutions of a national authority. This is what is meant by countries which aspire to be free. The emerging countries of Africa know that their power is limited in an infinite number of ways. But they are determined to be sovereign and they will defend their sovereignty.

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend makes that right distinction between omnipotence and sovereignty. But once one makes that distinction one brings in the element that if sovereignty is to mean anything, and the ability to carry out that which one sovereignly wills, one must agree that for all practical purposes no hon. Member of the House of Commons

actually believes that if after the next General Election a Government were elected who wanted us to get out of the Common Market and who passed that in the House of Commons we would not get out of the Common Market. It is just not true. Not only is it not true, but I should be prepared, as would right hon. and hon. Members who believe in our entry to the EEC, to take the names of those right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition who will be prepared to go round the country saying "After the Bill is passed, fight it no longer because it is now impossible to reverse."

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that he will go round the country saying that.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman imagine that the time is not after the next General Election but 30 years from now? Does he think that it is inconceivable that the courts in this country would hold that time had so worked that Parliament had lost, overtime, the right to take this country out of the Market? Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as totally inconceivable that a court would so hold?

Mr. Gummer: Totally inconceivable.
Turning to the effect of the Clause and the way in which it is worded, I suggest that there are two reasons, apart from it being unnecessary, why the House of Commons should refuse to accept it. The first is that it is not what it purports to be. It is not the innocent addition, the clarificatory phrase, the carefully worded protection which the right hon. and learned Member proposed it as. It uses a number of words which have begun to be used as cult words by those who wish us not to enter the EEC, and it does so with a very precise purpose. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has shown that purpose in many of his speeches to the House of Commons. But the purpose is to state at every possible opportunity that he and many others who think like him believe that Britain should continue in no way to change the nature of her sovereignty or the method of using it, whether by giving it away, sharing it. pooling it. adding to it or changing it. But the right


hon. Member for Stepney does not speak for his whole party.

Mr. Shore: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least add to that interesting sentence "Until the British people have had a chance to decide the matter themselves once and for all."

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman has to say that, but that is not what he has said in his speeches in the country. It is certainly not what he said in his speeches before the last General Election. Nor is it what he would say if he really believed in the sovereignty of Parliament, because the sovereignty of this Parliament is unlike that of any other Parliament in the world, in that we can decide. Some other Parliaments believe in delegation and not in representation. That is a point of difference which is very much held by the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches.
We must also consider whether this fairly represents the Opposition's view. In discussing the Clause it is essential to be clear about what right hon. and hon. Members opposite believed when they were discussing the background to the whole matter of our joining the Community. I am sure that it will not have escaped the Committee's attention that the joint statement about the future of Europe issued in 1969 by the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, now the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister of Italy, made it clear what the future was meant to be. They said:
…the development of a European identity is intended to lead to the creation of a united Europe…

Mr. Deakins: What does that mean?

Mr. Gummer: It was written by the present Leader of the Opposition, so no doubt he will explain what it meant. The one thing that it cannot mean is that the United Kingdom will not share its sovereignty with any other country on any grounds. Those words can mean many things, but they cannot mean that. That was true of the whole range of statements made by right hon. and hon. Members that were in charge of the country's affairs.
If that is true, it explains why right hon. and hon. Members who support this Clause, and, indeed, many of the other

changes which have been proposed to the Bill, were not in any way involved with the discussions for our entry into the Community. It would have been embarrassing if they had been.
The last point is that the Clause is subject to enormous objection because of its wording—
It is hereby declared that nothing in the Treaties or in this Act shall detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament.
I believe that in a very profound sense that would write down the whole nature of the Bill, diminish its whole concept, and diminish the concept of our entry into the Community.
Before right hon. and hon. Members say that that is an embarrassing statement to make, let me make it clear that Governments of both major parties have stated their belief that our entry into the Community, far from detracting from our sovereignty, enhances that sovereignty and makes it more meaningful.
It is for that reason that I believe that we should enter the Community. I believe that even to suggest in this unnecessary Clause that this is the possibility is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it diminishes the greatest enterprise Britain has entered upon to a miserable legalistic, unacceptable, unadventurous activity.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) said that, if the electorate does not like what Parliament does, it can throw out that Parliament and elect another to do something different. That is exactly the point of the Clause. It is for this very reason a crucial Clause, because it puts to the test the sincerity of those, who apparently include the hon. Gentleman, who say that there is no fundamental surrender of sovereignty in the Bill because Parliament could always in the last resort repeal the Bill itself.
There has been a great deal of dispute about whether the act of joining the EEC is irreversible. The facts, in non-legal language, arising from all our debates are fairly simple. Because by the most valuable of all the principles of the British constitution any decision of a previous Parliament can be reversed by a new Parliament, by our constitution the decision is not irrevocable. But by the Treaty


of Rome and in the eyes of the EEC and the EEC court it is irreversible.
5.15 p.m.
That means two things. The first is that the Treaty of Rome and the British constitution are flatly incompatible. That is one of the best of all reasons, as if there were not many others, for not signing the Treaty of Rome and not passing the Bill. It means also—this is what the hon. Gentleman and others blithely ignore—that if Parliament repeals the Bill when enacted Britain would be in breach of the Treaty. That fact cannot be just brushed aside by those who say that there is no loss of sovereignty because all Parliament has to do is to repeal the Bill when enacted, which would be as easy as passing it.
We should not sign a treaty which we have the intention of breaking at a later date. Despite that, those authorities are perfectly right who say that by our own constitution if the Bill is passed it can be repealed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), earlier in our debates, rested the whole of his case for the Bill and signing the Treaty on the ground that there was no loss of sovereignty because the Bill could always be repealed. This seemed to me to be a frivolous argument for a Member of this Parliament to advance who, after all, like all the rest of us, has been entrusted with all the powers and liberties of this Parliament for which former generations have fought so hard and so long.
To argue that we lose no freedom and no sovereignty by handing over our independence to the EEC because we do so voluntarily and could always take them back again is rather like arguing that a man who serves a gaol sentence loses no liberty or independence because he voluntarily committed the crime and will no doubt be released one day in the future. This is not a serious argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and those who agree with him and who rest their whole case on the argument that nothing can deprive Parliament of the right to repeal the Bill when enacted can show their sincerity by supporting the Clause. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham took this constitutional issue rather more seriously, he would be here with us today

to speak in support of and to vote for the Clause.
It is no good arguing, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West argued, that there is no need for the Clause and that Parliament's right to repeal the Bill when enacted is beyond doubt. There is doubt and this issue is not beyond doubt. The question whether entry into the EEC is legally irrevocable has been debated up and down the country, from learned legal articles in The Times to many less learned articles and speeches in other and less learned publications, not to forget the Master of the Rolls, who is always in our thoughts at present.
There are many other parts of the Bill—I will not enumerate them now—which have been included for the removal of doubt, though it could be argued that Clause 2(1) made those Clauses not strictly necessary. For the removal of doubt, therefore, on the most vital of all issues raised by the Bill, let all those who genuinely believe that there is no fundamental breach of parliamentary sovereignty accept the Clause. If they do not they are destroying their own argument and the inference in that case for those who sincerely believe in parliamentary Government would be perfectly plain—the Bill itself should be rejected.
It is now more certain than ever, and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will be repealed by some future Parliament. In spite of all the vast flow of propaganda we have had in weeks and months past, the opinion polls now show an even larger majority of people than ever before stubbornly opposed to entry on these outrageous terms. When they read the remarks of President Pompidou dictating what this country's future currency policy is to be, that majority will grow.
A Government can no more mutilate our whole constitution in the teeth of the opposition of the majority of the electorate than it can enforce the law on industrial relations in the teeth of the dissent of the working population. One would have thought that the Prime Minister would have discovered by now that other people can be as obstinate as he is. Since, therefore, the electorate will decide this issue let us remove all doubt


about their right to do so. We would achieve that by inserting the crucial new Clause into the Bill.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I hope we shall be able easily to follow on from the argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) to show that the new Clause is unnecessary. We have seen once again as we have experienced continually throughout the Committee proceedings, the short-sighted and nationalistic approach of the Opposition to the prospect of wider European unity and co-operation. That is something that the Opposition can only laugh at, but statesmen throughout the world have striven for centuries to achieve it. It does not seem to me to be something to scorn.
On this the last day of the Committee proceedings I make an appeal to the Opposition, and particularly to the Opposition Front Bench. Is it too much to ask them to raise their eyes a little from the simple, lush pastures of Ebbw Vale, Stepney and West Ham and to look at the wider world that we have an opportunity of gaining? It is both tragic and pathetic that when the whole of British industry and commerce is preparing to take up the challenge of going into Europe, all the Opposition can do is to fight the Bill in principle, as they have done throughout the Committee stage.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What evidence does the hon. Member have that the whole of British industry is gearing itself to take up the challenge?

Mr. Grylls: That intervention seems to indicate that the hon. Gentleman is not very knowledgeable about what is going on in British industry. One has only to be in contact with the greater part of British industry and commerce to know exactly that this is what it is doing.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Tell that to the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Grylls: Industry is enthusiastically waiting for 1st January, 1973, but the sad thing is that in Britain today the only people who are still the King Canutes of the political world, the

Labour Party, are maintaining their dedicated opposition to our joining the Community. They alone are trying to turn their back on the movement towards European unity and a stronger Western Europe. They alone are turning their back on Europe for party political reasons.
Dr. Kuipers, President of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, said in London yesterday that the purpose of the Community
is simply to achieve by joint action more than we could have done alone; and to solve economic and social problems which in some cases we could hardly have attempted to tackle independently.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. Grylls: I will give way in one moment. We have heard a lot of talk in recent speeches about sovereignty, and that is what the new Clause is about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) quite correctly said that if Parliament has the political will to do something it can do it, so why are people worried about sovereignty? If the House has sovereignty, which I believe it has, surely it is our duty to do something that we believe is in the best interests of all our constituents and of the country as a whole.
It has been clear from the debate, however, that the Opposition have not been attacking only the detail of the terms, but are continuing to attack the principle of British entry. If the new Clause is accepted it will be diametrically in opposition to the principle and method used to run the Community. When the fragile fabric of Labour's policy is stripped away it shows their root and branch opposition to joining the Community, and this applies particularly to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore).

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman intending to say anything about the new Clause when he has finished his Second Reading speech?

Mr. Grylls: I am sorry that I gave way. I was conscious that I had forgotten to give way a few moments ago, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman had a constructive point to make. If he had


listened to what I was saying he would have realised that I was talking about sovereignty, and if he examines the Clause he will see that the subject is touched upon there also.
The Labour Party knew perfectly well what they were about when they were in Government. We seem to have to remind the Opposition on almost every occasion what was in the 1967 White Paper. The whole tenor of the White Paper showed that the Labour Government knew perfectly well what they would have to accept. A speech made by a Labour Party spokesman a month before the last election put the matter very clearly. He said they were ready and committed to accepting the Treaty of Rome. That statement was made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson)—[Interruption.]—The Opposition may laugh at that, but that is what a lot of people in this country thought would be the view of a Labour Government, if elected. It was just as well that the Labour Government were not elected, because the electorate would have been hoodwinked once again.
There has been a clear majority in Parliament in favour of entry. Those hon. Members in favour firmly believe that the enlargement of the Community is in the interests of all our people, and that the political advantages are very strong. As has been accepted by almost every speaker who has opposed the Clause, we have the sovereignty to repeal the Bill if we want to and the provisions of the Clause are therefore not needed. The second half of the new Clause is unsuitable because it is destructive and would make it impossible for us to join the European Economic Community. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject it. It is destructive in its object. It is proof only that the Opposition are dedicated to carrying through their opposition in principle to entry into the EEC.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Those who move Amendments to the Bill are sometimes accused of attempting to wreck the whole concept of the Bill itself. But I do not think that anyone could level such a charge at this new Clause, for it would do no more than spell out in this most important of all

Measures a guarantee which has already been given by Ministers. It does no more than seek an assurance on a matter of crucial importance to the British nation as now constituted and for the generations yet to be born.
The Clause deals with revocability. There is nothing in the Bill as it now stands about that matter. There is nothing either in the Treaty of Rome or in the treaties creating the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom.
There is so much at stake—great and priceless freedoms which have been won at considerable cost and sacrifice over the centuries. Already, in the context of the Bill, we have had many grim instances of unexpected perils. We have already found it to be a more tyrannical machine than was ever envisaged. Already, as regards a major part of the Bill, we have had the shock of finding that the House had lost a power which it had for all time hitherto managed to exercise in relation to every piece of legislation, namely, the power to make amendments to each and every part thereof.
Mistakes may again be made by Ministers. In the near future, perhaps, the Government will discover that, unbeknown to them, the Bill cannot for some reason or other be repealed. If that unhappy day comes, I can think of no one more appropriate to make such an announcement to the House than the Solicitor-General, who will make it with all the conviction and all the holiness at his command.
Even if Ministers are at present happy in their own minds that there is not the slightest danger in relation to that most important of all aspects of the Bill, we on this side can only recall that, within the last two years, the doctrine of ministerial omniscience has suffered some cruel buffetings. Ministers of the Crown have a duty towards the British people; they are their servants, not their masters. We are talking here about the right of future Parliaments. This Parliament has come to its decision, albeit by a slender majority, but if there be any doubt as to the right of future Parliaments, the matter should be so settled as to ensure absolutely that the interests of the British people are protected. That is what the Clause is about.
Even if the Clause were to be accepted and passed, one could only describe it, in the terms used by mediaeval lawyers, as a tabula in naufragio, a plank in a shipwreck, for whatever happens, if the Bill is passed in its present form, the right of Parliament to legislate for the life of the British nation—that is what sovereignty is about—will be infringed.
This is what sovereignty is about. It is no narrow issue of nationalism, it is not about dreams of empire, not about the power to send a gunboat to any part of the world to exercise one's tyrranical will and dominion over other peoples. Sovereignty means that there is no barrier between the British Parliament and the British people, that nothing intervenes in that intimate relationship between Parliament and people, whether Britain be a powerful or a weak nation. That is the sovereignty about which we are talking. But whatever happens, whether the Clause is accepted or not, that sovereignty as we understand it will already have suffered its severest frustration in modern history.
I say that for three reasons. First, if the Bill becomes law, Parliament may, technically, have the power to regain the sovereignty which it had before passing it; but, even if it has, it could exercise that power only at the expense of being liable to be sued for breach of contract by other European nations for a sum in damages probably totalling many tens of thousands of millions of £s. There can be no question about that. If the Clause were inserted in the Bill, it might well affect our liability on that count.

Sir John Foster: The new Clause merely says, does it not, that the right of the United Kingdom through Parliament to breach its treaty obligations is hereby confirmed?

Mr. Morgan: It is not a case of breaching obligations, as the hon. and learned Gentleman puts it. It is a case of withdrawing lawfully. It is a statement before we have entered the European Economic Community that we are entering on those terms. In short, we spell into the contract now in its formative stage something which will guarantee our own position if we wish to withdraw later.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to that

point, for the very absence of such a Clause may well mean that we are wholly unprotected in relation to that very real peril. We may be sued—we shall undoubtedly be sued—if we withdraw unilaterally, for tens of thousands of millions of £s, a ransom which will lie for many generations upon the head of every man, woman and child in this country a tax which will effectively be upon every building, every items of property and every rood of land.
The freedom which we exercise, having entered the European Economic Community, is the miserable and agonising freedom of bartering a massive surrender of sovereignty for a monumental insolvency in place of it.
Second, I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is difficult at any one time for anyone to know just how much sovereignty we have, in fact, surrendered. It is inherent in membership of the EEC that its provisions have absolute paramountcy over our own institutions. That is true not only of specific Acts which have been passed but of constitutions as well. The Germans found to their cost earlier this year that even guaranteed human rights which were entrenched in their constitution were not inviolate from the effect of that principle. Indeed, in so far as they conflicted with the provisions of the EEC and its satellite bodies, they were ipso faco abbrogated by the pact of membership of the European Economic Community. What I put to the Committee is this: when we have a written constitution, we know what we are surrendering; when we do not have a written constitution, we do not know the exact limit and extent of our surrender. The same is true also with regard to the commercial and other aspects generally.
We have been dealing with this Bill in Committee for 21 days. No one in the Committee can say with certainty how such treaties, directives, declarations, exchanges of letters and thousands of instruments which are already in existence and the shades of many more which will come into existence will affect some of the most important matters touching the lives of each and every citizen in this country. No one knows to what extent it will still be possible through industrial development certificates to channel the resources of our economy to the areas in greatest


need of them; whether regional employment premium will be payable; whether agricultural marketing boards can function as anything other than completely truncated and emasculated institutions; whether agricultural grants and subsidies can be paid. I could give dozens of other examples.
The Government's attitude has been one of cynicism and complete lack of candour. They seem to feel that it is better for us to surmount the obstacles when we come to them. If anybody wishes—and this point was commented upon by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston)—to destroy the Welsh economy and thereby bring about further disintegration of the national community of Wales, all he has to do is to do nothing. All he has to do is to disentitle Wales from the operation of bold and dynamic regional policies, which are a condition precedent to the welfare of the Welsh people.
The third reason which I advance in this connection is that there is no certainty whatsoever in the Bill as drafted about what will happen in relation to Acts which are wholly or in part inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome or the other main treaties or any of the ancillary provisions. Has the classic parliamentary principle that where two Acts of Parliament are in conflict the provisions of the latter prevail been abandoned? Has it been destroyed by Clause 2(4), which reads:
…any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament, and any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section.…
If that means that all future legislation will be bound by the provisions of this Bill which relate to what already exists by way of finding legal provisions in the EEC and those that will be created in future, what is to be the position of a judge in a British court? Will he say that he looks to the totality of the Act, considers its purpose and then looks at the particular provision as against the background of that, as British judges have interpreted statutes up to now; or is he to say that he will be bound by European law? If he is to be bound by European law, the question must be asked: is this the function

of a British judge? Is this within the terms of the oath which he took when he was created a judge under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, which every judge must take? Under that he swears loyalty to the Sovereign, not to any officer of the EEC.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend has read the terms of Clause 2(4), which says that Parliament is telling the judge that for this limited purpose only he should have regard to the rulings of the European institutions.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Morgan: This is our case. The provision is not limited; it is open ended in so many respects. The judge will find himself applying European law as European law. We say that the oath which he has taken—"to do right by all manner of persons according to the laws and usages of this Realm"—is wholly inappropriate for the task he will be seeking to discharge.
Two ways out have been suggested by Professor Wade in an article in The Times published on 18th April this year. One is to pass an annual Act as the first statute for each year, declaring that for the ensuing 12 months all other statutes will be completely bound by the provisions of the EEC and by what will then be the European Communities Act, 1973. The other alternative is to write into each and every piece of legislation the subservient nature of that legislation to the European system. If either of those things is done, it will bring home to the British people in a way not brought home to them up to now the absolute dominion of Europe over their lives and conditions.
We were sent here by people who believed that we would act honestly, fairly and assiduously in the protection of their rights and privileges. Even after making every allowance for all our fallibilities and imperfections they still believed that we were in a position to discharge that solemn trust uninhibited, unhampered and unfettered by any outside body. The moment of truth is not very far away. Many people in Britain will soon realise that the measure of loss of rights, and the ability of Parliament to better their lives is very much greater than has been described up to now by the bitterest opponents of the Common Market.
The British people are losing to Europe, on account of the selfishness, irresponsibility and unwisdom of Ministers, rights, privileges and advantages which could never have been wrested from them in war. The House of Commons is facing the loss of rights and privileges which could never have been taken from it by a tyrant. When an arrogant Stuart monarch burst into the House of Commons on 4th January, 1642, and demanded of the Speaker of the House of Commons the surrender of five very gallant men. Speaker Lenthall turned to him and said:
I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House of Commons shall direct me.
After 1st January, 1973, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his colleagues will have neither eyes to see nor tongues to speak save directed to them by their masters on the other side of the Channel to whom they will have surrendered the fundamental interests of the British people.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and many of his hon. Friends talk about the importance of Parliament in defending the freedom of the British people, and yet he and his hon. Friends keep saying that Parliament has no right to take a decision on behalf of the British people. Therefore, the quotation with which the hon. Member concluded his speech fell a little oddly. I am a great admirer of the talents of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan, but my admiration was not increased by the speech he made tonight. He started by saying that this new Clause is not intended to wreck the principle of the Bill but merely to support it with certain assurances. It will be my purpose to argue that this Clause would wreck the principle of the Bill and is so intended.
In the latter part of his speech the hon. Gentleman talked a lot about the importance of defending and assuring the rights and liberties of our people. It seemed to me that that part of his speech, and the rest of his speech, was shot through with this negative, fearful attitude which is so prevalent on the other side of the Committee, and which

assumes that there is a body of liberties which must be defended lest they be eroded—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—but surely, this is the most timid, the most fearful, the most backward looking attitude to adopt. Surely our object should be to enlarge, to widen, to give deeper significance to these freedoms, and this can only be achieved in an expanding, dynamic economy.
I do not want to deal at any great length with the legal issue of sovereignty. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) dealt with this, in one of the best speeches I have heard during these debates. Of course, there is always room for argument on the legal aspect, and I listened with fascinated interest, as, I am sure, all hon. Members did, to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I did not agree with anything that he had to say on the subject of sovereignty, but I did think he had a valid point when he talked about the need for law to be acceptable if law is to be obeyed. However, he was leaving out of account, it seemed to me—and here, I think in some respects I shall carry hon. Members opposite with me—the duty of Government to give a lead.
Were I to quote as an instance of where, I believe, it was the duty of the Government to give a lead, against a background of public hostility, I would quote the Race Relations Act, manifestly a highly unpopular one, not, I think, supported by my right hon. Friend, but I believe most Members opposite would accept that the Government had a clear obligation to give a lead and to influence public opinion. Clearly, I am not going to carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me when I say that in the matter of the Industrial Relations Act the Government likewise had a duty to give a lead, and to maintain that lead, however temporarily unpopular with hon. Members opposite it may be.
To return to the new Clause, whatever one's views on sovereignty—and, as I have said, I think there is room for legitimate difference on the legal interpretation of sovereignty—this Clause must be superfluous. No Parliament can in fact legally bind its successor. What it can do, and what this Parliament may do in


the decision it is about to take, is to make it difficult for its immediate successor, more difficult for the successor after that, and very difficult indeed for later successors, to undo what it does, but this has absolutely nothing to do with legal concepts of sovereignty, or with one Parliament attempting to bind its successor. It has a great deal to do with the growth of interdependence of bonds which grow up in the political, economic and military spheres.
This is where I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was so right to bring in NATO, because Britain's ability to defend herself alone—I do not think there is any room for argument on this—is now non-existent.

Mr. Deakins: Tell that to the Queen.

Sir A. Meyer: I do not suppose she would disagree.
This is partly due to our membership of the North Atlantic Alliance, but it is due inflintely more to what has followed from our membership of the North Atlantic Alliance. It has very little to do with the North Atlantic Treaty being valid for only 20 years unless prolonged. It has a great deal to do with the fact that because we are members of the alliance we have so organised our defence that it is totally interdependent on the defence capacities and contributions of our NATO allies, and British policy has been conducted, since the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance, in the confident expectation that we shall have the support of our allies in the event of a war, and, therefore, we have not attempted to construct for ourselves a military machine which, alone, is capable of defending this island. It is capable of certain operations which may be necessary in various parts of the world, but it is not so designed as to ensure the defence of this island by our own capacities.
In exactly the same way, what will follow upon the decision which we shall take to enter the European Economic Community is that our economy will evolve in the same kind of way our Armed Forces have evolved, so that it will be totally enmeshed with that of the European Economic Community countries. It is in this way that our sovereignty will be limited, but this has absolutely

nothing whatever to do with concepts of one Parliament binding its successor.
The reason why I say that this Clause is not merely superfluous but highly objectionable has nothing to do with its stating something with which I disagree. It is impossible to disagree with what the Clause actually says; it is incontestable. I very strongly object to putting this Clause into the Bill because the effect of the Clause, and, without any doubt at all, the intention of those who are proposing the Clause, is to raise doubts in the minds of our future partners in the European Community of British good faith, to raise doubts as to the permanence of our intention, once the decision has been taken, and once the debates are concluded, to remain wholehearted contributors to the European Community.

Mr. Denzil Davies: If the Clause raises doubts, the doubts were raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is he who has used these words time and time again, and used them here.

Sir A. Meyer: I am not sure whether that is just a debating point. I am trying to address my mind to a rather serious point.
Such success as the European Community has had, and it has been a very considerable success, has been due in very large measure to the confidence factor. It has been due, rather surprisingly, to the very rigidity of the Treaty of Rome. It has been due to the fact that entrepreneurs in the Community countries have been able to feel certain that the obligations imposed on member Governments by the Treaty would be respected even if they were temporarily embarrassing or inconvenient for those member Governments. It has been due to the confident expectation that nothing could occur within the European Community similar to that which occurred within EFTA in October, 1964, when the Labour Government imposed the 15 per cent. surcharge on imports, including imports from EFTA countries, in contravention of the EFTA Convention. Such an act would not have been possible within the European Community. Because it was known by business men within the European Community that


there could be no such backsliding, they embarked on the programmes of expansion and the limited programme of cross-frontier integration which have been the major factors in economic growth within the Community.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair.]

6.0 p.m.

That has not been a totally uninterrupted process. There has been the long period of French non-co-operation. The attitude of the French Government, from the moment of General de Gaulle's veto in 1963, has gravely prejudiced the chances of the Community achieving all it hoped to achieve. None the less, the survival and continued development of the Community in these circumstances is nothing short of a miracle.

Persistent nationalist feelings and persistent distrust have been evidenced in most of the speeches we have heard from the Opposition benches this afternoon. That distrust is exemplified not by the Clause but by the proposal to insert it into the Bill. To insert the Clause would be like adding a new phrase at the end of the marriage service saying that nothing in the proceedings so far shall in any way limit the right of bride or bridegroom to go off on their own whenever they feel like it.

Either we are embarking on a great new project of ever closer integration, or we are not. If we are, it is no good our going in saying that we reserve the right to come out whenever we feel like it. That right is there, it exists, but to put it into the Bill is to display from the outset our intention not to take seriously our obligations. It is part of the general refusal of the Labour Party to accept change and to move forward which has been so well exemplified in speech after speech.

The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) are like the counsellors of King Canute, not like King Canute himself. Maybe King Canute did not accept advice, but King Harold did. The reason why the Leader of the Opposition is no longer a credible figure, either in this country or abroad, is that he has accepted a change of policy which goes far beyond

the denunciation of the Tory terms—a change of policy which is illustrated by the new Clause. I cannot see how any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite who believes that it is to the benefit of the country to become a member of the Community can possibly bring himself to vote for the new Clause.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) denounce what he sees as nationalism in those who have put forward the new Clause. I find it curious that Tories who conduct their meetings in front of a table draped with the Union flag should be opposed to any manifestation of nationalism. I intend to devote my few remarks to this question from the point of view of a Scottish Nationalist.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) argued strongly that Parliament should make the decision whether or not we should enter the EEC. Many quotations were bandied about by the hon. Gentleman and other opponents of the Clause. The only quotation which has been omitted is of what the Prime Minister said in May, 1970, about our entering with the full hearted consent of Parliament and people. He made that distinction. He did not refer only to the full hearted consent of Parliament. That betrayal, despite all the casuistry, cannot be explained away.
Detraction from sovereignty is the nub of the legislation. A Scot who has studied the history of his own nation knows what it means to Scotland to have surrendered sovereignty in 1707. I make no apology for going back to that date. The hon. Member for Flint, West, talking in the EEC jargon of forward-looking dynamic politics, backed up what he said by a reference to King Canute.
When this great debate started the Government Front Bench spokesman denied vehemently that there would be any derogation of sovereignty. As we have gone along, they have admitted that there will be. No country in the world is entirely sovereign, but surely 75 per cent. sovereignty is better than 25 per cent. sovereignty. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made the good point that as the debate has been going on the people have become more and more aware of


what is involved. As each wrapping is taken from the mummy, the people are beginning to see the dust on the dry bones in the bottom of the casket. The Government cannot go into Europe with the full hearted support of the people; they cannot go in with the full hearted consent of the Scottish people or of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies because the majority of them, of all parties, have voted against entry.
The arguments in favour are similar to the arguments put forward in the Scottish Government in 1707, the arguments of people who have lost faith in their own nation and their own destiny. In the view of those whom I represent in Scotland, the United Kingdom is going the way of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Presently, Wales and Scotland will be self-governing countries again. Because of the opposition of the Scottish people and of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, the party I represent has served notice in Brussels that we will not be bound by any of the agreements made by this Government.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), if I may paraphrase his words, said that if we dislike any of the legislation coming from the Common Market we can simply reject it. Seven years after the Treaty of Union a tax was placed on salt, which was expressly forbidden by the Treaty. The Scottish people protested, but they were quite unable to do anything about it. That will be the position when this country goes into the Common Market.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I did not say that if we disliked any legislation from Brussels we could automatically reject it. I do not think that we can necessarily do so. If we enter an agreement to accept certain regulations, we must adhere to the agreement. What I said was that the Clause indicated a fundamental objection to the institutions, and that is a different matter.

Mr. Stewart: I ask the hon. Member's pardon if I have done him an injustice or misunderstood him. Scottish interests have never been represented in the House of Commons in a way which satisfies the people or the country. I forecast with confidence that, if we enter the EEC, in

a few years' time I shall be joined on these benches not only by Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, but by English Nationalists determined to take this country out of the EEC.
The Prime Minister recently said that on accession to the Community we should have a day of music and drama. I believe that a national day of humiliation and prayer would be more appropriate. If we are to have drama, I feel that when the curtain is rung down the stage instructions will be quite clear: exit Britannia. That is the future that is ahead for all of us. There is no mandate to take this country into the EEC because the people are still opposed to entry. Therefore, I support the new Clause.

Mr. Tom King: It is perhaps not inappropriate that I have been called to speak after the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) since I represent a constituency in which the last emergents of an independent English nationalism unfortunately met a sad end—namely, at the Battle of Sedge-moor.
The hon. Gentleman expressed with considerable individual passion his belief about opposition to the Bill in Scotland. If my own contribution is lacking some of the passion and vigour of some of the contributions we have heard today, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), it is perhaps due to the fact that the clock has a familiar look about it since it is exactly12 hours since I last rose to my feet in this Chamber. My speech on this occasion will be a little longer, since this morning I spoke for only two minutes.
The feeling that I have been here before is not connected in any way with my earlier contribution today. I have a feeling that the issues which are being discussed in the context of the new Clause are the same central issues around which debate has raged in this Chamber throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. One of the weaknesses of the Clause is that it tries to stand on two feet at the same time.

Mr. Powell: It may be a good idea.

Mr. King: It may be a good idea, as my right hon. Friend the Member for


Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says, but if neither leg is very sound it is an extremely dangerous posture.
The first of the two principles is the basic question of sovereignty. Every hon. Member has tried to master the conceptual difference between the two elements in the Clause—ultimate sovereignty and total supremacy. They are two different things which have been frequently confused in the contributions from the Opposition benches today The question of ultimate sovereignty is not in doubt. The question of total supremacy is something which must be affected by our accession to Europe.
The Opposition appear to be impaled on twin hooks of their own making. They insist that the problem of the Bill is that it is irreversible but they also insist on their intention to repeal it. Their second hook is that they challenge the sovereignty of Parliament to take the decision towards which Parliament is proceeding while at the same time claiming to be the great defenders of the sovereignty of Parliament. This argument has been destroyed very effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who made the situation clear in a spell-binding contribution. The conclusion of his argument seemed to have the opposite result to that which he appeared to deduce from it. If I quote him correctly, he said in regard to the will of the people, that if the people will, they can. Is that not the ultimate judgment on the question of irreversibility in terms of any treaty of accession?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Surely that situation can arise only if people break their pledged bond. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my argument. The argument relates to the people and to the question of who is sovereign. My right hon. Friend made the point that the sovereign will of the people is expressed through Parliament, that ultimately the will of the people will be reflected in Parliament and that what they wish to achieve they will achieve. This argument, which was forcibly made by my right hon. Friend, effectively demolished the argument of irreversibility.
The second half of the Clause—the second rather weak leg on which it stands—was described by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in terms of Regulation 22. He referred to the restraints on individual Governments in making separate interpretations of Community regulations.
The new Clause would fly in the face of that idea. How could it be otherwise? How can we possibly expect to move into a community, accepting common arrangements, common tariffs, common undertakings and obligations, and then to reserve for ourselves the independent and separate right to vary them as we wish? Not only do I insist that this must be an obligation recognised by us if we accede to the Community but I believe that it is an obligation which we must require and which it is essential for us to see is observed by the other countries as well. We must see that they also respect the obligation and are prevented from unilateral variation of Community regulations.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true about the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Rome, why did every one of the original six signatories insist on annexes preserving some of those rights—in many cases even wider rights than those on which we insist in new Clause 11?

Mr. King: It would be quite wrong to introduce that point as an argument against the general principle that individual Governments do not have a general power—I am not here referring to separate reservations which may be entered—to made individual and separate amendments to Community regulations to suit their own situations. If we enter a community and accept certain obligations, we expect those obligations to be accepted by the other countries as well.
This regulation is as much a safeguard for us as it is an obligation upon us. That is the point which is so often missed in all these debates and in the circular argument which has gone round and round the question of our entry into the Community. We are accepting obligations. In return we are receiving obligations and benefits from others and the


acceptance by the other members of the responsibilities they owe to us.
It is because we must approach this matter in a constructive spirit that I endorse entirely the analogy adduced by one of my hon. Friends of the marriage service. If we entered the caveat that the marriage service did not remove from the parties the right to divorce, what a prospect that would be for the marriage. It is because we approach this matter in the knowledge that we do not lose the ultimate safeguard that we require, because we retain not total supremacy but ultimate sovereignty, that the Clause is superfluous to the Bill.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) highlighted the fact that the validity of a law depends upon the consent of those who receive that law. In other words the political will of the people expressed through Parliament determines the supremacy of Parliament. On that the ultimate supremacy of Parliament depends. Given that political will, the sovereignty of Parliament is the keystone of our political arch. Our whole constitution is an historical growth based upon the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament cannot bind its successor. One Parliament is able to repeal or alter Acts of a former Parliament.
If this new Clause is negatived, in my opinion a future Parliament will be unable to repeal or to alter the Bill when it becomes an Act. If that is so, Parliament is fettered and powerless and will become a mere debating society shorn of all its former powers. If my mathematics are correct, the salaries alone of hon. Members of Parliament total £2,835,000 a year. That is a lot of money for the Community to have to pay for a debating society. If the Clause is defeated, therefore, we might as well dissolve Parliament permanently. Its continued existence would be a mere sham.
I urge the Government seriously to consider this grave step. They have said time and time again that the sovereignty of Parliament will not be impaired. I call upon right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side to honour that pledge and to show their sincerity by accepting the Clause.
The Clause is a protection. It might be termed an escape clause. How the 13 Confederate States of the United States would have loved an escape clause letting them out. How Scotland would have loved an escape clause letting her out of the treaty of 1707. How Ireland would have welcomed an escape clause allowing her to get out of the treaty of 1801.

Mr. Ridley: In relation to Scotland, how does it come about that only very occasionally does a Scottish Nationalist succeed in being elected to this Chamber if all the Scots are longing to get out of the treaty?

Mr. Tuck: I do not quite understand that intervention. Time and time again Scotland has declared that she would like to get out. That does not mean that she will do it by force. The Scottish Nationalists form an extreme sector of that community. However, we know that Scotland as a whole would like to be free from the shackles which the treaty of 1707 placed upon her.
If the Government do not accept this Clause their bland assurances have a hollow ring and, in my view, will show them to be wholly insincere.

Sir J. Foster: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) has cut across the arguments on both sides of the Committee that Parliament has sovereignty. The argument from the Opposition benches is that the Clause would merely bring into the Bill a pledge already given by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We ought to look at what the Clause really says. One may take a legalistic view about the word "ultimate" by contrasting it with what would be penultimate sovereignty, temporary sovereignty and so on. However, in political terms we are entering the European Community and this Clause would say that we reserve the right to break our treaty obligations. That is an unattractive Clause to have in the Bill, in any event.
The reason behind it is obvious. The opponents of entry into the Community cannot accept that Parliament has endorsed the principle of entering the Community by a very respectable majority—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: A majority of eight on Second Reading?

Sir J. Foster: I said that Parliament had supported the principle of entry. It is for internal political reasons that the strugle to get the Bill through has resulted in majorities not reflecting the principle supported by a large majority.
The Clause is intended to serve notice on our partners in the European Community and to other opponents in this country that we reserve the right to break our treaty obligations.
I happen to belong to the school of thought which believes that Parliament has the right to do that. However, I ought to bring to the notice of the Committee that there is a respectable school of lawyers who say that a judge will not enforce an Act of Parliament which does it. I do not belong to that school, but it exists, and Mr. Gough has written a very interesting book about it.
If a law were passed saying that no coloured person might marry a white person in this country, that would be a breach of our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. It would be most unattractive legislation. But the ultimate sovereignty school, to which I belong, would say that Parliament had the right to enact it. The courts have avoided this kind of clash by having a very strict rule of construction which says that unless it is clear that Parliament intended to breach our treaty obligations, our courts will not enforce a Statute which does that.
So far no legislation has been passed saying that notwithstanding our treaty with Ruritania we hereby abrogate it and say the opposite. However, there are threats from right hon. and hon. Members opposite to do that. That is why they want to embody in a Clause a right which undoubtedly exists in the last resort.
The great objection to the Clause is the political one that there should not be a Clause in a Bill saying that we reserve the right to break it. That is a breach of honour. It is a breach of one's word and of one's obligation. I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Members opposite put forward this view without any shade. They say that if the people want to break their word they should

have the right to do so. But if the British people are honourable, in my view they will want to abide by their given word—

Mr. Tuck: Whose word?

Sir J. Foster: The word given by the Executive and supported by Parliament duly elected. I do not shrink from that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) destroyed the argument for the new Clause. He kept on talking about the will of the people being the expression of sovereignty, yet he supports a provision which refers to the sovereignty of Parliament.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Perhaps we might have accepted the interpretation of the matter by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) if it had not been so constantly said by Ministers "Of course, it is open to Parliament to break its word if it wants to." That has been the principal defence which the Government have offered when we have made the charge that effective power is being transferred away from the House of Commons.

Sir J. Foster: It is legally true that Parliament has the right to break its word, but it is the last thing it should do. If a civilised country has entered into a treaty it should not break it although it has the legal right to do so. Therefore, the whole struggle of opponents of entry is to prevent the United Kingdom entering the Common Market in the first place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke in metaphysical terms about the right of the people. He was supporting the revolutionary theory that they would first work through both parties. I remember he was saying eloquently that the people would work through both parties and the will of the people would make itself felt. But in a civilised democracy, which we have, the will of the people is expressed through a General Election.

Mr. Powell: No.

Sir J. Foster: That is what my right hon. Friend was talking about but he avoided saying it all the way through.

Mr. Powell: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend wishes to be fair. I prefaced my remarks by reference to the point of time by which this Parliament would have to come to an end.

Sir J. Foster: I maintain that the record will show that my right hon. Friend did not say that the will of the people would be manifest through a General Election. He spoke of the will of the people acting on both parties or all parties and of that will coming through. That seemed to negate the whole point of the Clause, which refers to the purely legalistic view that Parliament can, if it so decides, determine that the United Kingdom shall break its treaties.
Incidentally, it is possible for Parliament to bind its successors. It is not difficult to draft a Bill to do so. Of course it would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution and it is rather an irrelevancy at this stage. One need only draft a Bill with the last Clause saying, "No Bill altering this Act or this Section shall be introduced into Parliament until there is a petition signed by 40 million people over the age of 21."Parliament can do that; it is sovereign. If a Bill were subsequently introduced which did not comply with that requirement, it would be ruled out of order. So it is not at all difficult to draft a Bill to that effect. Of course the commonsense answer is that it is politically impossible and contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
This is not only a legalistic debate regarding the legalistic concept of the sovereignty of Parliament. There are many different ways of looking at what "sovereignty" means. Some people say that every treaty limits our sovereignty. I say that sovereignty remains but that treaties limit our actions. When we say that we will not indulge in the slave trade, that is not limiting our sovereignty; it is saying that slavery is something we will not have.
We are entering the Common Market as a form of partnership. We are agreeing with all the other countries that we will not act on our own and that we will follow Community law. We have agreed to do so. I do not regard that as a limitation of sovereignty. I do not quarrel with the argument that one can have a system of semantics which does so. The matter is put into proper perspective if

one regards the treaty as an agreement between one or more States to carry out certain actions and to refrain from certain actions. No sovereignty is limited by that concept. We have the sovereignty to do it and the sovereignty to break our word.
However, it is important that the opponents of entry should realise that they are pressing for the right to break their word and for that to be spelt out in this legislation. Some people do not shrink from that. They justify it by saying "We feel that the majority of the people are against it, and that justifies us." I can understand that argument but I do not agree with it. I hope I do not sound priggish when I say that that attitude is immoral and unethical.

Mr. Shore: If the hon. and learned Gentleman takes the view, which most of us do, that we should not give our word lightly as a country and bind ourselves with other countries in matters which affect their welfare as well as our own, that is a solemn matter. Because it is so solemn, surely the obligation falls upon the proposers of our joining the treaty to ensure that they have the broad consent of both main parties in the land and all the people. That is the whole point. They do not have that consent.

Sir J. Foster: I can see that argument but it does not affect the Clause. I disagree with that argument because at the General Election it was indicated that the Conservative Party would press on with the policy of the previous Government in joining the European Community.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: To negotiate.

Sir J. Foster: Yes, negotiate, and after negotiation one agrees. Obviously there is no point in simply negotiating. Having negotiated and rightly gone into Europe because there was sufficient support, one cannot under the British constitution keep going back for referenda and General Elections. The Executive has been elected through Parliament to enter into the treaties.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that "negotiating" in the Conservatime election manifesto meant going ahead and entering. But the Prime Minister, who spoke for the Conservative


Party at the time of the General Election, carefully avoided going that far. The words he added were, "no more, no less", which is something quite different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying.

Sir J. Foster: I do not agree. I interpret the words as entitling my right hon. Friend after he had negotiated to accede to the treaty.
The whole of the General Election was founded on the principle by both parties that we should go into the Common Market. It was not envisaged that the Labour Party would turn itself round and say "We do not agree with these terms." That would negate the whole idea of the Common Market because one cannot enter the Common Market on any terms without the 1967 White Paper principles. One cannot go into the Common Market without giving supremacy to Community law and without saying that one's partners and oneself will come to the decisions. The Left wing of the Labour Party has been opposed to entry from the start, but it is impossible for the great centre and the other wing of the Labour Party consistently now to say "We do not want to have Community law as the governing law. We do not want to follow the decisions of the Community Court." ft is impossible logically to enter the Community on those terms.
Let us assume that all the Conservative terms are wrong. Whatever terms the Labour Party agreed, however, it would have to agree that it could not say, "We are going into the Community but we will reserve the right to pay no attention to anything the Community does." That is the political difficulty the Labour Party is in.
We have great speeches about this realm of England and all the traditions of thousands of years. That is a lot of emotional language which is designed to oppose the concept of entry into what I call this partnership with foreign countries. I welcome it. I can understand people saying "No, we want to keep England apart from the European Community", but their case was given away by the majority of the Labour Party.
For these reasons, the new Clause should be rejected. The main reason is a political public relations exercise. One

does not write into legislation to carry out a treaty "And I reserve the right to abolish it." If we put into every treaty into which we have entered—for example, for the abolition of slavery, the Declaration of Human Rights and double taxation—a Clause stating "And nothing in this treaty shall affect the right of Parliament to undo or to abrogate it" and if we specifically added "And we reserve the right to disregard any Community law which interferes with this Clause", we would find ourselves in the position referred to by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) who was afraid that the United Kingdom would be sued for thousands of millions of pounds. I do not think that is a possible danger. The hon. Gentleman was dramatising that the United Kingdom would be responsible for breaking a treaty and would incur a good deal of odium. Having solemnly entered into a treaty, at whatever stage we may decide to give notice, we would incur a great deal of odium and the odium would be all the stronger if, from the moment it was enacted, the United Kingdom reserved its right to abolish it. Our potential partners in the EEC would point to the Clause and say "We do not think the Clause shows great sincerity, because you are still thinking of leaving the Common Market."
For those reasons, I believe that the Clause should be totally rejected.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I support the new Clause. I do not think it will do much harm, and it might conceivably do a great deal of good.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) that the arguments for and against the Clause depend not on the psychology of the situation but on its legality. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there is a respectable body of legal opinion which suggests that Parliament can act in such a way that it can fetter its successors and limit their power to withdraw from the treaty. I beg to differ from such legal opinion, if it exists. It is clear that if Parliament passes an Act which allows us to accede to and to undertake the obligations of the Treaty of Rome, at some future date it can, if it wishes, pass an Act saying that we can withdraw.
I do not think that the Master of the Rolls, in the case quoted by my right hon.


and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), went as far as he suggested. It is clear from the passages in the judgment to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred that the Master of the Rolls was saying that it may be true that the power to bind successors would exist and that going into the Common Market might be an irreversible step. But he went on to say:
I will assume that Mr. Blackburn"—
the applicant in the case—
is right in what he says on these matters. Nevertheless, I do not think that these courts can entertain these actions.
The Master of the Rolls was saying that he was prepared to agree with the arguments put forward by the applicant for the purpose of that action but that he was not recording a legal opinion that the step would be irreversible. I do not think it is.
It is also clear that an equally distinguished judge, Lord Justice Salmon, who added a concurring judgment, was not making any such pronouncement, even in the form of an obiter dictum, because he said:
Nor have the courts any power to interfere with the treaty-making power of the Sovereign. As to Parliament, in the present state of the law, it can enact, amend and repeal any legislation it pleases.
I think that power exists, despite the provisions of Clause 2(4).
6.45 p.m.
If in due course Parliament decides that it is right for the British people to withdraw, I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that if the people will, the people can, and the people can will through Parliament.
The question then arises: should we say it in the Bill? Should we make this provision plain so that people can be reassured on this matter? There is a good deal to be said for reassuring that quite large section of the British people who have reservations about going into Europe that, if the going gets as rough as my hon. Friends have been telling them for so long, they can at that stage withdraw. This would seem to give them reassurance on going in. It is not undermining their faith; it is not a suggestion that they are not wholehearted in their

belief in Europe. Many of them are not wholehearted in their belief in Europe.
It does not need a Clause in the Bill to tell Europe that. Europe has seen what has been going on in the political discussion on the Common Market over the last two years. It has observed the Labour Party's position on the matter. It has seen and heard a number of assertions that there will be an attempt to renegotiate the terms agreed by the Government. It does not need a Clause in the Bill to lead to a certain amount of uncertainty in Europe about what the future might hold.
The new Clause will not cast doubt upon the sincerity of Britain; it will reassure the people of this country that the sovereignty of Parliament is not being diminished by the Bill. It is not. The words "ultimate sovereignty" appear in the Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich suggested that there might be a difference between "ultimate" and "penultimate" and so on. I believe that sovereignty is sovereignty.

Sir J. Foster: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lyon: If Parliament says to some other institution "For the purpose of this area of our law-making power we will cede these powers to you to the point where we say we will take them back so that in the meantime you will be able to make laws which will be binding upon us", that is not to diminish the power of Parliament, because Parliament has given the power to that body and in due course it can take back that power if it so wishes.
Sovereignty is not simply legalism. Sovereignty is where the political power is. In the judgment to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, the Master of the Rolls said that in 1931, in the Statute of Westminster, Parliament gave the dominions their complete independence from this country and that no one could suggest that Parliament could or would take back that power. I suggest that Parliament can but that it would not. It would not, because the plain realities of political power are that we could not enforce it.
I do not like to touch on the controversial issue between the parties concerning Rhodesia, about which I have strong feelings, but we know the limits


of our legislative power compared with the rôle of political power in such a situation. Clearly we would not say to Canada "We gave you independence in 1931, but we are going to take it away now" because we have not the power to enforce it. However, that does not curtail the sovereignty of this Parliament to deal with the matter if it wished. That, therefore, is the situation. Sovereignty rests with us up to the moment when physical power has taken away that sovereignty.
I am an unabashed federalist. For the purpose of argument, I am prepared to concede to those of my hon. Friends who want to make a political point out of the issue that I believe that the Community should gradually grow into a federal union in which the power is shared by all the people of the Community and is expressed in their institutions.

Mr. Deakins: Prejudiced.

Mr. Lyon: I am prepared to accept that. I wear it as a badge of honour and not as a charge. As far as I can see, the world would be vastly improved if all nation States gradually moved towards such institutions.
I look forward to the time—I do not see it in the reasonably near future—when we shall live under a system of international government that is binding upon all the people of the world. We have not got there yet, and I see the Community simply as a stepping stone to it. That being said, however, I maintain that within that kind of institution it is not impossible to allow for the sovereignty of Parliament of the member States, up to the point where the union is so close—where the concept of the people's community is so obviously expressed and the power and the forces of the community are under the dominance of the central federal institutions—that no one would then argue, any more than we would argue with Canada, that the sovereignty of the individual States could then be taken back.
That position was reached in the American Civil War when Lincoln denied the States which had joined the union the right to withdraw—because the union had merged together to such a point that it had become inconceivable that it should break up. That position

in relation to Europe, however, is so far ahead that we need not consider it. Up to the point where that position began to exist there would always be the right to withdraw. As I see it, that is both the legal position and the position in terms of physical power. I merely say that the Clause would be useful in our present fevered debate about the Community in order that our people can be reassured of the legal position.
If in five, 10, or 15 years' time it became plain that, contrary to my hopes and beliefs, and consistent with the hopes and beliefs of many of my hon. Friends, the Community was not felt to be in the best interests of the British people, we could withdraw. I am certain that such an assurance would to some extent still the passions that have been aroused on this issue. Nothing has caused so much upset among the ordinary people as the feeling that we are doing something irreversible, something that we shall not be able to change. I do not believe that is true. I believe it is reversible, and I believe that our people should be reassured that it is reversible.
For that reason I am prepared to vote for the Clause, because it says no more than I believe to be the exact position.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) made an entirely correct and rather courageous speech, with which I found little to differ. In passing, I would say that for hon. Members to believe that the word "federalist" is a term of abuse, denoting a kind of sexual perversion, is rather shocking. I should have thought that as a member of a party that used to proclaim its internationalism—the Socialist Party—the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) would find nothing obnoxious in the word "federal". I do not. There are many federations in the world, and if the European Community in the end proceeded to federalism I should not object. I should welcome it.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West was a little disingenuous in finding, as usual, an excuse to vote against the Government although he believes in the cause that the Bill seeks to enact. It is a pity that so many hon. Members on the Opposition side who are in favour of the Bill have found convenient excuses not to


let their thoughts and their votes go together. I do not think it is true to say that by adding the Clause to the Bill the British people would in some way be enlightened about the true nature of the legal position in terms of sovereignty. They are not likely eagerly to pick up the Bill on the day of Royal Assent to see whether this Clause is in it. The hon. Member for York can spread the gospel in the country as he has done in the House of Commons this afternoon. What he said is clearly true.
The new Clause seems to me to be objectionable. Half of what it says is a declaration that Parliament is sovereign. That subject has been talked about so much that there is no need to add any more to the universal acceptance by the Committee that Parliament is sovereign and cannot bind its successors—exceptto say that possibly now, after hundreds of years of sovereignty, with full knowledge of the doctrine that we cannot bind our successors, solemnly to write it into the Bill in a way casts doubt upon the position and certainly casts doubt about the certainty of our own powers, doing so at this stage in our development for reasons which I feel to be inadequate.
The sense of the new Clause is that we shall not obey the articles of the treaty. the Court of Justice and the edicts and directives from Brussels if we find them inconvenient. It is wrong to mix up the two concepts—that the sovereignty of Parliament continues and that we are not going to obey the treaty if we do not like it.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said, the Clause represents a declaration in advance that we shall breach the contract if we can. We shall be entering the Community on a contract, or a partnership. Some have referred to it as a marriage. All such things are forms of contract. In a contract it is possible to have a break clause, but if there are no break clauses we accept the full implications of the contract that we sign. I believe that acceptance of the Clause would create an appallingly bad impression. We should be saying that we reserved the right to break the contract in the future.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) agreed that we must

not break treaties, but I remind him that he himself, as President of the Board of Trade, broke the EFTA Treaty on the first occasion by the imposition of the import surcharge and on the second occasion, unless he had left office by then, by building the aluminium smelters. At any rate, his Government did that in clear breach of the EFTA treaty.
It was not as if there were a saving clause in the EFTA treaty that said that it would not be binding on us to observe it; there was an express clause in that treaty which said that it was binding upon all signatories to keep the terms of the treaty. If the right hon. Gentleman is against breaking treaties, let him first agree that we should include in the Bill no saving clause which would enable us to break the treaty in the future and, secondly, that it is better to have instruments such as the Commission and the Court, which can enforce our keeping our word—because we have not proved all that able to keep it in the past.

Mr. Jay: Is not the real moral that we should not take on obligations that we may not be able to fulfil?

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman may not wish to fulfil the obligations under the Treaty of Rome; most of my hon. Friends and I do. Therefore, we would not like to see any waiver in the Bill. It has been assumed in the debate that if at a later stage we wish to opt out of membership of the Community, that if in 10, 20 or 30 years' time the British people make it manifestly clear that they do not wish to continue membership, the only way to deal with that situation will be to break our Treaty obligations. I do not believe that that will be the only way. I believe that it will be possible to go to the Commission and say that we wish to negotiate our way out, just as we negotiated our way in. I grant that it will be appallingly complicated. I grant that poor terms may be available to us because we shall be the supplicants in a contract from which we are seeking to disengage, but it does not follow that we shall have to break the Treaty.
7.0 p.m.
Indeed, no Government in their senses would put through a Bill revoking the Bill now before the Committee and expect


that everything would be ended by so doing. They would have to negotiate. We might get poor terms. If the terms were onerous, we might have to withdraw illegally, just as we have from other treaties. We broke the treaty with Portugal over Goa. We broke the EFTA treaty. We cannot be smug about treaties which we have kept but, if in the negotiations we are provoked beyond what is reasonable we may do something unreasonable. That is why the American colonies left us. Countries have gone to war against us for their independence because they believed that the maintenance of the contract was onerous and not supportable, and the ultimate right of a sovereign power, as we shall remain, is to do that.
I think that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) summed it up when, in answer to an interjection about a speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) in an earlier, similar debate, he said that the concept of sovereignty remaining with this House was unanswerable but meaningless. I want to go back to those two words. It is now agreed that our sovereignty in a legal sense remains with us and cannot be taken away. The hon. Member for York agrees. I do not know anybody, not even the hon. Member for Stepney, who has not conceded that when power to take action is diminished by the Bill that is really what the Committee is saying and what we are meaning. The right hon. Member for Stepney believes that it will be meaningless for us to try to move against that situation in the future; that having conceded some powers they have gone. I do not quarrel with that, because I believe that these powers have gone and because we are building something else which is an alternative and which will be found acceptable to the people of this country.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) spoke about Scotland and the Act of 1707. But in that Act there did not remain a sovereign Scottish Parliament. It was abolished, and instead the Scots took 72 seats in the House of Commons, which they still have. They gave up their sovereignty but, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, they have never wanted to opt out

of the common market between England, Scotland and Wales. Of those 72 seats, I can think of only individual occasionson which one has been occupied by a Scottish Nationalist, let alone their voting overwhelmingly for the suggestion that Scotland should break away from the United Kingdom and its succour for that country.
The Scots gave up their power as described in the Clause. We do not do that, and our position becomes stronger if we join the Common Market but, as has been said by both the supporters and the opponents of the Bill, as the years go by we shall find ourselves, our economies, our political systems and our military systems—this was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)—so much more integrated and so much more involved that the question of the transfer of sovereignty will become meaningless.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Deakins: I shall try to be fairly brief, because I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and we have several other new Clauses to consider by the time the whole Committee stage is guillotined at 11 o'clock.
At long last the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has admitted that he is a federalist. I have been warning the Committee for some time that gradually more and more of the pro-Marketeers would emerge from their lairs and declare themselves publicly to be federalists. Whatever is said about the issues discussed at the last General Election, one thing that is clear is that the issue of federalism was not put before the British people. One hopes that at the next General Election those who are federalists will have the courage of their convictions and declare themselves so and justify themselves to the British people.
The argument in this debate has been a little confused between parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary power and the will of the people. I wish to concentrate first on the power aspect and try to separate it from the issue of sovereignty.
There can be no denying that in the Bill there is a great loss of parliamentary power. There can also be no denying


that in the Bill there is a great increase in power of both the Executive in Brussels and, more important, the Executive in this country because it has power to decide what needs parliamentary scrutiny and what does not.
The Bill is promulgating a new constitional doctrine, a kind of divine right of the Executive. We are discussing, not the sovereignty of Parliament, but the sovereignty of the Executive, and that sovereignty is being embodied in the Bill, both in the content of it, and in the manner in which it is beng presented to the Committee. Never before has there been a perfect Bill of this importance unable to be amended. Never before, certainly not in the two years that I have been here, has a Committee of the House been treated with such arrogant contempt by those who have to answer the detailed questions put to them in debates.
The fact is that the Bill makes major changes in constitutional practices relating to taxation and the passage of laws, and it is a bad argument to say that these issues were clearly put before the people at the last General Election. The issues that were put before them then were those of rising prices, and so on. They were domestic issues, not issues related to the Common Market and what it involved for parliamentary power.
Parliamentary financial control is one of the roots of parliamentary sovereignty. It was affirmed in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which was a Bill of Rights for Parliament. If this Bill is passed, it will be a Bill of Rights for the Executive of this country, the first time that we have had one in the history of Britain.
The Bill also weakens the principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament, since although Ministers will still be under an obligation to come to the House from time to time to justify their actions at Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere, they will no longer have to go through the procedure of having to come to the House first and justify themselves in the Committee stage of legislation going through the House.
If one turns from the issue of power—and no one can deny that we are losing power—to that of sovereignty, we are told that we shall still have parliamentary sovereignty. The Pro-Marketeers are trying to get it both ways. Until

today the argument from the Government Front Bench and from most pro-Marketeers has been that there is no loss of parliamentary sovereignty, but we are now told by a number of right hon. and hon. Members that we shall be losing parliamentary sovereignty. It seems to me that if they cannot make up their minds the issue of parliamentary sovereignty must be a matter of grave doubt, and therefore it is all the more important that the issue should be clarified both for our purposes and for the British people.
One is all the more worried about sovereignty because of the Government's failure to include in the Bill a right of veto under the Luxembourg Agreement. That is surely a necessary safeguard of parliamentary sovereignty, because it lies with any future Executive in this country to disregard the assurances given about our power of veto and to accept an agreement made in Brussels or elsewhere which Parliament would normally have expected our Government to veto.
Once we are in the Common Market there will be a great deal of horse trading in which Parliament will play no part but the Executive will play a great deal. There is the trading of parliamentary power against the alleged economic advantages, but eventually we shall trade the reality of parliamentary sovereignty, and not merely power, if that is considered by a future Executive to be necessary.
Why are the Government so reluctant to accept the Clause? It is true that we do not have a written constitution, but if we pass the Bill we shall have a precedent for making explicit that which is implicit in the unwritten constitution, that no Parliament can bind its successors. The Government will refuse to accept the Clause for the very obvious reason that they, like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury are increasingly of a federalist turn of mind, and believe fervently that Parliament must be weakened in order that the progress to federalism can be smooth and easy.
The next step on that path after the passage of the Bill is the acceptance of full economic and monetary union. No one can deny that that would mean further removal of parliamentary financial and legislative power. Once we are


enmeshed in that economic and monetary union, not the most ardent pro-Marketeer can say that parliamentary sovereignty continues to exist, even in theory. But the final steps on the road to a completely federal State in Western Europe will be much easier for the Executive to take.
Our concern for parliamentary sovereignty and rights has been scorned throughout this Committee stage. We have been treated like little children. If we point to the flaws in the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession, the Government say, "Do not mind this—look at the practice of the Communities." If we point to the flaws in the practice of the Communities we are told, "Do not mind this—we shall be able to change it all when we go in." These are not only illogical replies but are at the very lowest level of political argument.
Throughout the Committee stage, as on so many other occasions, we have been treated with supreme contempt. It was Burke who said:
…a great empire and little minds go ill together.
We have lost our empire, but are still ruled, and I do not refer only to politicians, by men of little minds who are bewitched by this mirage of power and prosperity across the Channel. In my opinion, they are corrupted by their own mediocrity.
Open federalists should seek to justify what is in the Bill, and the exclusion of this Clause. If the Government are federalist, as one increasingly suspects, let them say so, and let them justify it to the Committee and to the country at large. They must not pretend that we are not taking a major step and have no need to worry. The Bill, frankly, attempts to escape responsibility for deciding where sovereignty will lie in the future. If it still lies in Parliament the Government should accept the Clause. If not, as we strongly suspect, they should make clear to the British people and Parliament what is being done in their name. But the fact is that it is being done without their knowledge, and certainly without their consent.
Ultimately, under constitutional practice and procedure, the rights and sovereignty of Parliament are the rights and sovereignty of the people. To

undermine the one is to undermine the other, and in doing so the Government are opening the way for people to have to take their own action to defend their own rights. If Parliament fails to speak, what are the people left with except to take action themselves? Parliamentary democracy and parliamentary sovereignty are inseparably linked: if we sacrifice the one, we sacrifice the other. That is why the Committee should support the new Clause.

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): No one would deny that this debate has been about important issues at the heart of the matter with which we have been concerned for so many days. Some arguments have been advanced which go well beyond the new Clause, and take us back to challenge once again in principle the whole concept of accession to the Communities, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) pointed out. I do not propose to spend a great deal of time on that now. When such arguments are advanced, as they were, for example, by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), one can respect their full sincerity and sense of responsibility, though one can disagree with them, but I would remind him of what the Lord Advocate had to say, now many weeks ago, about the compatibility between accession to the Treaties and the Act of Union.
As a Welsh expatriate, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), I share the concern that this Committee should be acting in these proceedings on behalf of the Welsh people as on behalf of the English and Scottish people, and I can respect equally the concern of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I cannot, I fear, respect the way in which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) set about denouncing in principle, root and branch, in intemperate and emotional language, the transfer and transformation of the rights of the British people, and the way in which he asserted, in terms dramatic enough to command attention outside the Committee, that we were tearing away from the people rights never wrested from them by any tyrant. That argument


sits uneasily in the hon. Gentleman's mouth as a member of the previous Government. It sits uneasily in his mouth to say that we are doing something indefensible by transferring the rights of this Parliament, and that the powers of legislating for the British people will have passed away, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged quite frankly in May, 1967, about the extent of the transfer, as we have discussed so often, of treaty and law making powers from this country. I therefore spend no more time on that statement.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will accept from me that if I had been a member of a Labour Government, however strange that might seem, which had brought in a Bill of this nature, I would have tendered my resignation.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to speak intemperately, but that will not do, in fact, because, however and in whatever form or under whatever Government accession to the Communities was prepared, it would have had to make provision for transfer in the terms outlined by the Leader of the Opposition of a certain degree of legislative and other powers from this House of Commons, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has always asserted. There is no point in trying to conceal that. Therefore, it is not strictly acceptable to me for the hon. Member for Cardigan to denounce that which was inescapable.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, with characteristic tranquility, uttered the same sentiment when he spoke of his harkening now to a requiem to parliamentary sovereignty. If it is indeed a requiem—and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, requiems can be cheerful as well as cheerless in certain circumstances—it is one which he helped to compose, and which, had he been in office, he would now have been helping to conduct. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had other arguments of some substance to which I shall refer later.
The hon. Member for Cardigan advanced other arguments which generate, or can generate, fears which are wholly unworthy, and which actually serve to

demonstrate the reality rather than the fantasy of what we are about. He said that if we were to withdraw from the Treaty of Accession we would face incalculable claims for damages, and in answer to that statement one asks: who would enforce such claims for damages, and how? It is the absence of any realistic or compelling answer to that question that underlines the reality as opposed to the fantasy. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, how could the mere enactment of a domestic provision along the lines of the new Clause affect those fearful organs that would pounce upon us from outside. It does not relate to what is going on.

Mr. Jay: The Solicitor-General would agree, however, that although it may be that damages could not be enforced, we, nevertheless, should be in breach of the Treaty if we were to do that.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman knows something about actions in breach of treaties. No one has ever sought to challenge that. That is why we are all regarding this as a massively important Measure and why it has been debated and discussed by successive Governments for so long.
Taking up another point made by the hon. Member for Cardigan when he embarked upon his description of Her Majesty's judges being dragged away from their oaths of loyalty to the Sovereign, again that will not do. The accession to the Communities, as the righthon. and noble Lord, Lord Gardiner pointed out in 1967, is in itself an exercise of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament, with the Crown to which the judges have taken their oaths, is by this enactment making changes in our law allowing us to accede to the Treaties. The hon. Gentleman's argument was beside the point.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South was right to focus upon the heart of the matter—although I do not agree altogether with his presentation of it—when he said that the hear of the matter was how to reconcile the irreconcilable, the supremacy of Community law with the sovereignty of Parliament. Those are certainly the two factors that this country has always had to balance in a way uniquely different from


other countries in approaching its membership of the Community. But they are not in the end irreconcilable. This is a task which would have had to be undertaken by any Government that succeeded in negotiating access to the Communities. The Clause will not help in the reconciliation.

Mr. John Mendelson: Why?

The Solicitor-General: I shall answer that question. I am delighted to find the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) uncharacteristically impatient to listen to what I shall say.
The Clause will not help because the first part of it contains, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, a fatal paradox—I shall explain that again shortly—sufficient to make the first part of the Clause futile, as he said, and really a hollow sham. The second part of the Clause, as has been pointed out by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) is itself quite irreconcilable with the Treaty obligations.
What is the position concerning the ultimate supremacy of Parliament? I suggest to the Committee—and this is consistent with what we have all been saying, from the Government side of the Committee, from the beginning of these debates—that the position is that the ultimate supremacy of Parliament will not be affected, and it will not be affected because it cannot be affected. If one returns to everything that has been said by successive Lord Chancellors about this, one finds that way back on 2nd August, 1962, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Dilhorne said:
Parliament could repeal the Act applying these Treaties; it cannot be prevented from doing so. But it must be recognised that, in International Law, such a step could be justified only in exceptional circumstances; and if it were taken without such justification, and without the approval of other member countries, it would be a breach of the international obligations assumed on entry into the Common Market."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2nd August, 1962; Vol. 243, c. 421–2.]
The same sort of impossibility, in theoretical terms, was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, on 8th May, 1967, when he said:

There is in theory no constitutional means available to us to make it certain that no future Parliament would enact legislation in conflict with Community law. It would, however, be unprofitable to speculate upon the academic possibility of a future Parliament enacting legislation expressly designed to have that effect."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1203.]
Finally in this line of distinguished occupants of the Woolsack, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailsham said on 27th July last year:
If we enter, we enter without thought of going back, as the others have entered and stay in without thought of going back. But we will remain as the others remain, sovereign. We are not in the habit of going back on our word. We do not treat treaties as scraps of paper; but we have always in practice had the power to do so, since power is a question of fact and power is the reality of sovereignty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 323, c. 203.]
That is why whatever the Clause sought to say would make it, in the last resort, a hollow sham.
With respect to the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich, I do not dismiss what he said absolutely, but on balance I should have thought that if the Clause were to say, "This Act cannot be repealed", that would, in the last resort, be an empty sham. I know that there are respectable arguments to the contrary—I do not wish to go into them now—but on balance that seems the better view.
Equally, if we were to say, "This Act can be repealed", it would be a pointless exercise because what the House of Commons says about the nature of its sovereignty can scarcely affect what is one of the ground rules of our constitutional system. An article by Professor H. W. R. Wade, cited in the judgment of Lord Denning which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, says:
If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey Acts of Parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. The rule is above any beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute. This puts it into a class by itself among rules of common law, and the apparent paradox that it is unalterable by Parliament turns out to be a truism.…Legislation owes its authority to the rule: the rule does not owe its authority to legislation.
That is the underlying reality and why the first part of the Clause cannot affect the position. That is the reality of which Lord Denning, and Lord Sankey too.


spoke in the British Coal Corporation case.
I do no resile from the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West of the foundation upon which the will of the people is based in the last resort. It is that from which we derive our sovereignty and which gives us a due sense of responsibility. But that will is expressed through ourselves as their elected representatives. That is why our democracy is a representative rather than a direct democracy, And that will having been expressed in Acts of Parliament is then regarded by the courts as the structure upon which on constitution depends.
It is worth reminding the Committee that Lord Diplock, in his talk on 1st December last year to the Association of Teachers of Public Law said, representing the reality:
If The Queen in Parliament were to make laws which were in conflict with this country's obligations under the Treaty of Rome, those laws, and not the conflicting provisions of the Treaty, would be given effect to as the domestic law of the United Kingdom.
That is a proposition I asserted during the debate on Clause 3, and that is the sovereignty which is being exercised here and now, with the support of successive Parliaments, this Parliament supporting successive Governments on behalf of the people of this country, as we believe and as many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee believe, for their greater advantage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) and the hon. Member for Inverness have all asserted that that is the way in which we exercise our sovereignty. The same proposition was well put long ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. This is where we come back to 8th November, 1962, and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's consistency on this matter. He said then:
I hope that there is no doubt where we stand on this issue. Our position is that if we can get the terms, then we go in.
The third thing which I must say—and it is perhaps a pity that I need say it, but our position has been misrepresented so much—is that our attitude is not based on national sovereignty. We are not clinging like woad-painted aboriginal Britons to outmoded concepts of national sovereignty.

The right hon. Gentleman went back even further when he said:
In our first debate in August, 1961, I said: 'The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see.' That has been our attitude right through."—[Official Report, 8th November, 1962, Vol. 666; c. 1271.]
By joining the Communities on this basis and upon that judgment, which Parliament has made on so many occasions as to the balance of advantage and disadvantage, we must accept, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), that the system of the Community provides for the supremacy of Community law, and inevitably for the uniformity of that system of Community law.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

It is to our advantage as much as to the advantage of other members of the Community that it should be uniformly applied. The workability of such a system depends upon the acceptance of decisions by the European Court of Justice and of decisions, within the scope of the Treaty and lawfully arrived at, of the institutions. Yet it is that which the second half of the Clause seeks to set aside.

It is for that reason that the second part of the Clause would be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich pointed out, a breach of honour, a breach of obligation, inevitably arising from the Treaties—an attempt in one and the same Bill to set aside what follows, as the hon. Member for Cardigan pointed out, from Clause 2(4) and Clause 3(1), an inconsistent provision sitting alongside them; and it would be positively misleading to those on whose behalf we seek to enact the legislation.

How can we in this context seek to write in as it were a blanket exclusion Clause at the end of legislation designed to put us into the position to implement our obligations? It is not only in the context of the marriage contract that that kind of thing is unacceptable.

I do not under-estimate the importance of what the Committee, the House of Commons, and Parliament have been


about throughout all these long debates. I hope I shall be forgiven for saying that it was my duty to consider the way in which we set about implementing these obligations and putting ourselves into the position to do so; and I hope that I did so. I certainly did not do it without being aware of the responsibilities which rested upon me. I read the book containing the collected speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and with the help of many people studied most of the articles and propositions that have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons in the course of the debates.

At the end of all that, I believe, and the Government believe, that in law and in policy the way in which the Bill seeks to fulfil these tasks is a correct and effective way of doing it. Certainly I assert, and I think that it is important to assert, that we are doing this—again I hope to be forgiven for quoting words used by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister—
to create a new unity…a unity the greater and more real because it builds on, and does not reject, the rich diversity of those nation States whose national aspirations, culture and characteristics will become more vigorous and more fruitful by being welded together in a wider outward-looking unity inspired by a common purpose and a common resolve for peace."—[Official Report, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1097.]

It is not an unworthy end. The Bill will not be assisted in fulfilling it by the addition of the Clause.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: This is obviously an occasion for declarations. The Solicitor-General has at least accepted that it is an occasion for him to make a declaration of his responsibility for the terms of the Bill. We respect him for that. Perhaps he will take the inclination for express declaration just one stage further and follow the logic of his own argument by accepting the Clause, not merely in principle but as a useful addition to the Bill.
It is not in dispute in the debate that the provisions of the Bill make substantial inroads into the sovereign power of Parliament, into its power of decision and its power of control. That is common ground, although I suspect it is a matter that has been giving the right hon. and

learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) some doubts.
The substance of sovereignty is, at this stage of the Committee proceedings, past praying for. The hope at this stage is that something of the essential form of sovereignty can yet be salvaged. So the Clause seeks to save the ultimate legal sovereignty of Parliament by express reservation of it. The argument is that express reservation is legally desirable, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) put it, for the avoidance of doubt.
I could not hope to add to the eloquent and forceful case pressed by my right hon. and learned Friend as to why this declaration of sovereignty should be embodied in our internal law for the benefit of the citizens of the United Kingdom. I may perhaps add a footnote dealing with the reasons why this declaration is also desirable in terms of our external legal relations. Here I tend rather, to my surprise, to agree with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) than with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), because I believe that my hon. Friend perhaps exaggerated the extent to which a change in the Community arrangements can be made without breach of the treaties if it is made in the right way.
Paragraph 22 of the 1967 White Paper dealt with the manner in which the writ of Community instruments would run in this land after entry. It proceeded:
These instruments, like ordinary delegated legislation, would derive their force under the law of the United Kingdom from the original enactment passed by Parliament.
The corollary is that, if Parliament could and did repeal the Bill, all Community law would cease to have legal effect in this country. I take it that the Solicitor-General has conceded that.
That might be constitutionally permissible but yet repugnant to the European Court. Hence the wording of the Clause. It is because of our anxiety that we should face this apparent conflict between the power of the European Court and the ultimate sovereignty of the House of Commons that the wording of the Clause stands as it does.
We on this side are not ashamed of the paradox that it presents because.


as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) recognised, the paradox is a real one and not an abstract one. We on this side believe that we should face fairly and squarely the possibility of such conflict between sovereignty and the Community's writ—indeed, that we owe it to our future partners in Europe to declare ourselves openly and frankly on this matter.
How does the external legal position stand then? Article 240 of the Treaty of Rome states:
The Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period.
It is for ever. It is not like a partnership, despite what the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said, because the analogy on which the hon. and learned Member founded the analogy of partnership, will not suffice. Partnerships can be dissolved by unilateral act. Nobody is suggesting that that can be done in the case of the Community. The treaty, then, is for ever. It provides no machinery for secession. It provides no machinery for denunciation.
I say that there is nothing particularly unusual about international treaties which are intended to be binding nevertheless containing provisions under which those treaties can be dissolved, altered or denounced or by which members can withdraw from them. That does not prevent international treaties from being forged and being maintained honourably.
We are asking for no more and no less than that. There is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for unilateral withdrawal. Equally there is no formal sanction against such withdrawal. Again, I agree with the Solicitor-General's view and disagree with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan.
The treaties can be amended. They have been amended—Article 203 is a case in point—by agreement. No doubt withdrawal by a member State agreed to by its partners could be legally effected by amendment of the treaties. It would be subject to a single veto. Dissent by a single member State would make the withdrawal illegal at international law.
To avoid the stigma of a breach of international law of this kind, we would have to negotiate our way out; and this could prove at least as difficult—I should have thought very much more difficult—

than negotiating our way in. We might make the process easier—it certainly could not make it more difficult—by an express declaration of ultimate sovereignty in terms of the Clause. It would be the honest and straightforward way of dealing with our future European partners, particularly in view of what has been said from time to time by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the veto and about vital national interests.
The 1971 White Paper said:
If unacceptable situations arise the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find an equitable solution.
The corollary of that must be that the right is recognised for a member State to withdraw honourably and legally. That is all that the Clause asserts and it does it openly and honestly. No real criticism has been made the Clause concerning its drafting or its effects. The criticism is criticism of style and the suggestion, which I hope I have refuted, that it somehow impugns our honourable intentions of maintaining an agreement to which we are bound.
The Government and their supporters are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the Clause is unexceptionable in what it contains, in which case it should be accepted; or it is objectionable. But if it is objectionable the Government must reject the assurances of their Ministers to the same effect which have been made not once but repeatedly. The Ministers are tied by their own words. They must accept the Clause. The Solicitor-General did not depart from the pattern.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Will the hon. and learned Member deal with this point? This is what troubles me about the new Clause. If there were to be a withdrawal from the Community by agreement, or if the Community were to be dissolved by mutual consent, clearly there could be no difficulty in the exercise of the sovereignty of Parliament to repeal the Act, irrespective of whether the new Clause says anything about it. If on the other hand there is no such agreement to our departure from the Community, would not the exercise by Parliament of its constitutional rights involve necessarily a breach of international obligation, and is not this a dilemma which is not resolved by putting into the Bill a declaratory new Clause


which could be fulfilled only in the relevant circumstances by breach of international obligations? That is an inescapable dilemma which I have indicated now for about 10 years. I do not feel very happy about the way in which the Clause seeks to resolve it.

Mr. Murray: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty and we appreciate the consistency and clarity with which he has put his view. I do not pretend that the new Clause resolves the difficulty, but it is more honest and frank. It at least states the position, as we on this side regard it, clearly and honestly. It gives fair and reasonable notice to our future partners in Europe about where we stand on the matter.

Mr. English: Is not the answer to the question by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith), as I believe has happened with other treaties ratified by Measures of this character, that were the Clause to be accepted it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government when ratifying their accession to the Treaty of Rome to insert in the ratification provision a statement similar to that which would have been put into the Bill by the new Clause? Would not that have the effect in international law that we desire?

Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend has made a useful suggestion. The paradox facing the Government, however, is how it can be right for the words which are substantially those of the new Clause to be correct in the mouths of Ministers but wrong when added to the Bill.
To me the most compelling argument for the express reservation of sovereignty in the Bill is not so much legal or constitutional, but political. This country has no written constitution and no constitutional guarantees. The protection of the people against political oppression and against financial imposition—they are both vitally important in connection with the Common Market—is the sovereignty of Parliament, because it is the sovereignty of the people that is entrusted to the House of Commons. It is that sovereignty which protects the people of this land against tyrants at home and oppressors abroad. The House of Commons is an

instrument of the people's sovereignty; it is not the people's master. John Stuart Mill put the point a century ago in his essay on representative government.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: At the end of this long Committee stage, is not the hon. and learned Gentleman in confusion in what he says about the ability to protect the inhabitants of this land? Is he yet again failing to distinguish between omnipotence and sovereignty?

Mr. Murray: Perhaps if the hon. Member listens he will see what John Stuart Mill had to say on the subject. It is more relevant. He said:
There is no difficulty in showing that the ideally best form of government is that in which the sovereignty, or supreme controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the community; every citizen not only having a voice in the exercise of that ultimate sovereignty, but being, a least occasionally, called on to take an actual part".
When it is true to that ideal Parliament fulfils its trust to the people. The new Clause would allow the pledge of that trust to be redeemed, mortgaged as it is in the Bill in security for the onerous terms of entry which we owe to the Community.
No doubt with that trust in mind the Prime Minister made entry subject to the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people. It follows from that, does it not, that express reservation of sovereignty in terms of the Clause is a direct moral obligation upon the Government in view of that express undertaking? But the Prime Minister has already defaulted on that promissory note. He said last year:
I have always made it absolutely plain to the British people that consent to this course"—
that is, consent to entry—
would be given by Parliament…Parliament is the Parliament of all the people."—[Official Report, 28th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 2212.]
He had already forgoten the people and he had moved on to Parliament because
Parliament is the Parliament of all the people".
The next stage, following the inexorable logic of repeated marginal majorities in the Committee stage, would be to forget Parliament and to go for the full-hearted consent of the Government because it is the Government of all the


people. Perhaps the consent is more full-hearted in No. 10 Downing Street than elsewhere in the Government.
The Prime Minister has already broken the trust given by that undertaking, and he has forgotten the people. "Our sovereign, the people" are the words of the toast by which Charles James Fox lost his membership of the Privy Council in 1798. We on the Opposition side cannot accept that we can substitute for the consent of the people the full-hearted consent of one Prime Minister.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I was quite willing to go straight to the vote but I saw an hon. Member on the Oppositionside rise to speak. If he wants to continue the debate I am prepared to respond, I hope in moderate terms, to some of the insults by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). If anyone has broken a trust it is the Leader of the Opposition who has put in such little appearance in our debates in the recent months. [Hon. Members: "What about the Prime Minister?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has other duties which are not like those of the Leader of the Opposition, who is going about spending most of his time writing memoirs about his so-called colleagues and avoiding his duties in the House. Whenever I have been a member of the Opposition, my leader has always been in attendance on important matters.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) spoke about arrogant contempt. He should have seen particularly the 1945 Parliament and the "We are the masters now" attitude. I saw a Socialist Law Officer of the Crown make that statement from the Front Bench. I recall the arrogant contempt with which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is now the Shadow Leader of the House, used to deal with his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) during the last Parliament. One had only to watch the hon. Gentleman when he was leader of the "no-go area" below the Gangway to understand what arrogance and contempt was. I am not surprised that he leads the Opposition now.
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee—[Hon. Members: "Then

sit down."] I have been waiting here the whole afternoon—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have been attending these debates for 12 weeks.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: So have I, which is more than many other hon. Members can say. I have waited hoping that I could speak before the winding-up speeches came, and I have some observations to deliver. The new Clause challenges the whole concept of the United Kingdom joining the Community. That is what is intended, as the hon. and learned Member for Leith made clear.
We are back to square one. I do not mind. I have no quarrel with those hon. Members on both sides who have objected, some over many years, to our joining the Community. They have argued again the issue of sovereignty, but that argument was destroyed by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in his speech a few minutes ago.
In 1945 Parliament transferred from the Government of this country to NATO decisions which have been of far more significance in the last 25 years, in my view, than the transfer of economic power now proposed can ever be. I often wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite really believe that they can go it alone, or whether they have some other proposal for the way this country should face the future without entering into more co-operative ways of working. What has happened to the £ over recent years, and especially over the past few weeks, stresses again the need for a far more settled and ready way of working together within Western Europe if we are to protect our currency.
It is a pity that hon. Members on the Opposition side exaggerate. They do not strengthen their case. We recall what was said by those who supported entry in 1967 and 1970, above all by the right hon. Member for Stepney, who was then a Cabinet Minister. Time and again he has avoided answering the question: how could he make the statements which he now makes when he was at that time a member of the Government and supported the 1967 White Paper, making a number of speeches in support of his right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition?
We have heard from the Opposition that they will not break treaties but will renegotiate them. I am not too unhappy about that, because I remember how they said they would renegotiate the Nassau agreement, and I am delighted to know that the Nassau agreement still remains.
The Opposition's speeches have presented a travesty of the future conditions in which hon. Members on both sides will work together with our European friends. I am one of those—we come from both sides—who have the privilege of attending several of the international assemblies, and I know what the reaction is to the sort of speeches which hon. Members opposite now make, especially among the Social Democrats who, since the end of the war, have been looking to the British Labour Party for a lead in building Europe and to this country for a lead in building institutions to maintain freedom under the law. The speeches we have heard today from the Opposition will be no help whatever.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said—some hon. Members opposite have made the same point—we may have a diminution of sovereignty but the correct way to look at it is that we are pooling sovereignty. That is the way it has often been expressed. We are going into a partnership in which this country, without arrogance and without contempt, may play a useful and constructive part.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall not detain the Committee, and I shall keep to the terms of the Clause, unlike the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker).
When I played a small part in the preparation of the new Clause, I did not expect that it would cause such excitement among the poor Europeans. In my naive way, I thought that the Clause would do no more than incorporate into the Bill words which had been uttered time and again by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I imagine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must feel a little slighted to find that his hon. Friends do not want to see those hallowed words of his incorporated in legislation. One wonders why not. Why do not the poor Europeans want to take this final step of incorporating in the Bill assurances which the Government have given?
As I read it, the Clause is in no sense an attempt to torpedo the idea of our entry into the Common Market. On the contrary, it is an attempt, in the light of the assurances given, to resolve any future doubt which might arise in the mind of the judiciary when interpreting the Bill. We have heard a lot about sovereignty, and I do not want to go over that argument again, but I hope that the Committee realises that sovereignty is a legal concept, too, and the question is: how will the courts of this country interpret the Bill, and how will they interpret future Acts possibly designed to repeal or substantially modify it?
Although this Parliament may do what it likes, it is the courts of this country, and ultimately the European courts, which will decide whether later legislation is to take precedence over former. For this purpose, in order, so to speak, to make the matter clear to the judges—not only our own judges who are familiar with the doctrine that Parliament cannot fetter its future actions but the European judges, too—this Parliament should make clear that future legislation shall not be encumbered or restricted by the present Bill.
If the Government had introduce a different Bill, it might not have been necessary to insert these words. However, after long consideration and discussion in Committee, it is by no means clear to me, whatever the views of eminent lawyers may be, that a future Measure seeking substantially to modify this Bill would take precedence over it in our courts and the courts of Europe.
I was surprised to hear the Solicitor-General referring to the declaration by Lord Diplock, I think it was, in 1962. I cannot remember his words exactly, but I understand that Lord Diplock said something about future legislation overriding any obligations under the treaty and being enforceable in our courts.

The Solicitor-General: I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding of fact. The quotations I made from 1962 came, one, from the Leader of the Opposition, and, two, from Lord Dilhorne. The quotation from Lord Diplock was December, 1971.

Mr. Davies: All right, December, 1971. But I understood the Solicitor-General


to say that Lord Diplock meant that if a future Act of Parliament contravened an obligation arising under the treaty, the courts of this country would give precedence to and would enforce the later Act of Parliament as opposed to the obligation under the treaty. That is how I understood what Lord Diplock had said in 1971, according to the Solicitor-General.
Later in his speech, the Solicitor-General said, "Of course, Community law is superior in these matters. Community law takes precedence in these cases". He has drafted a Bill—or the parliamentary draftsmen have drafted it—from that standpoint. Clause 2(4) makes clear that any future enactment shall take effect subject to this Bill. By Clause 3 we are told that the courts of this country must take into account the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice.
Thus, the Government have drafted a Bill which, on the face of it, is designed to limit the future ability of Parliament to repeal this legislation. To say that Lord Diplock said that it could not be done and then bring in a Bill which seeks to do it, whether it can do it or not, is a complete paradox in the Solicitor-General's argument.
8.0 p.m.
This is the kind of confusion which will arise and which the Clause seeks to do away with. It tells the judges, "You are not sure whether a later Act takes priority over this Act. That doubt is resolved for you," because it tells the judges that in a matter of doubt the sovereignty of Parliament always overrides in the ultimate. The purpose of the Clause is to resolve the kind of doubt which arises from the legislation.
The Solicitor-General said that if we were to pass legislation which had the effect of taking us out of the Rome Treaty the payment of damages could not be enforced. The Clause is intended to enable us to withdraw legally from the Treaty of Rome, because any European judge, looking at a future Act, would have to interpret that Act on the basis of the sovereignty of Parliament. But if the Clause is not accepted, the European Court—and the final arbiter would be the European Court—would seek to say, "The earlier Act takes precedence over

the later Act," and then we shall be in the position of breaking our treaty obligations.
The Solicitor-General said that damages could not be enforced, but he did not deny that if we broke our treaty obligations damages could be asked from us or we would be liable to pay damages. I should not be so sure that some of those damages could not be enforced, because we are not living in a simple peasant society in which we have no trading relationships with Europe. What about the British subsidiaries in Europe? What about their assets? What about royalty agreements and payments of money arising under European agreements? Why could not the European Court sequestrate those assets in Europe in order to exact damages or raise tariff barriers against us in order to seek to obtain those damages from us because of our breach of obligations? We should not dismiss this matter as lightly as the Solicitor-General sought to dismiss it.
The fear of damages will prevent us from passing that kind of legislation. I do not know the history of the Concorde project, but it has been suggested in the newspapers that perhaps one reason why we did not feel impelled to break our obligation was that we might be sued by the French in the International Court of Justice. I do not know whether there is any truth in that. But Parliament, if it were to seek to repeal this legislation, would have to consider the effect, not only of damages being called from, but of damages being extracted from, our European trading organisations.
The Government do not want to include the Clause in the Bill. One is left with the suspicion, as happens so often in these debates, that they make statements at the Dispatch Box, but when it comes to the point and they are asked to incorporate the effect of those statements in legislation they will not do so. This calls their credibility into account.
At the election, the Prime Minister said that we would not enter the Community without the full-hearted consent of the British people. He has refused to honour that pledge. He said that we would only negotiate—no more, no less. He has refused to honour that pledge. Now the Solicitor-General has said time and again that there will be no derogation of


sovereignty. When we ask him to put that in the legislation, he is afraid to do so because it is another pledge which he knows he cannot honour.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 278.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[8.5 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Henry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allen, Scholefield
Fell, Anthony
McBride, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marsden, F.


Biffen, John
Golding, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marten, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Body, Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moate, Roger


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Molyneaux, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Concannon, J. D.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Padley, Walter


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davidson, Arthur
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H. J.
Kilfedder, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)




Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Swain, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Skinner, Dennis
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spearing, Nigel
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wallace. George



Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Weitzman, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and and Mr. James Hamilton.


Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)





NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kershaw, Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.


Awdry, Daniel
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fidler, Michael
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Balniel, Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Lord


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel, (Surbiton)
Lamont, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman
Le Merchant, Spencer


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd,Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveridge, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.


Bowden, Andrew
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Bray, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grieve, Percy
Madel, David


Buck, Antony




Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Channon, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle


Clegg, Walter
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Cooke, Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cordle, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crowder, F. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dean, Paul
James, David
Osborn, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jessel, Toby
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dixon, Piers
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil







Peel, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Percival, Ian
Simeons, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Pounder, Rafton
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Steel, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Redmond, Robert
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wilkinson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Younger, Hn. George


Rost, Peter
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Royle, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott, Nicholas
Tilney, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Marcus Fox


Sharples, Richard
Trafford Dr. Anthony



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Trew, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause

SELECTION OF DELEGATES TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

'Any selection of or provision for selection of United Kingdom delegates to the European Assembly or members to serve on any Parliamentary committee for the scrutiny of proposals for Community secondary legislation shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Discussion on the new Clause which we have just been debating ranged very widely and dealt with an extremely important subject. I am not saying that the matter of this new Clause is not important, but it is not of the same scale of significance as that of the Clause the Committee has just finished debating. As we are operating under the guillotine and are extremely eager that before it falls at 11 o'clock we should have opportunity to discuss the other two new Clauses after this one we hope to keep this debate brief, certainly as brief as we can, although we shall try to cover all the matter in the Clause.
First, I would recite as speedily as I can the events which led to our putting down this Clause. It deals with two

matters. One is the so-called ad hoc committee to survey the instruments which may be coming out of the institutions in Europe before those instruments are settled and decided upon, and how this Parliament can intervene to discuss them. The second is the composition and nature of the British delegation to be sent to the European Assembly and what should be the rights of this Parliament in such matters. Those are the two subjects which arise upon this Clause.

I would trace briefly the discussions we have previously had here on these two matters. I think the first suggestion for having the ad hoc committee was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an earlier debate in this Committee. If I have it aright, he suggested that there should be an ad hoc committee set up to discuss what sort of committee should then be set up to survey the instruments which would be coming out of the European institutions.

When he made that proposal some of us on this side of the Committee and, maybe, in other parts of the Committee, felt that to be a proposal, in so far as it was a way to deal with instruments coming from the Community, which should be incorporated in the Bill. We did not think it right that at the same time as the House of Commons and its Committees were sitting to discuss these matters there should also be an ad hoc committee discussing the same matters, for we thought that a most extraordinary way of


proceeding. Even so, we put down an Amendment referring to this. The Committee rejected it. I am not saying that the Amendment was the best devised Amendment, but it was an Amendment which sought to deal with the suggestion at that stage. However, it was not adequately dealt with then, so we are seeking to deal with part of the question in the new Clause.

On an earlier Amendment we discussed the composition of the delegation from this country to the European Assembly and how Parliament should retain some control over it. Our proposal was rejected by the Government, but during the debate it was suggested that a Select Committee should be established to examine the whole question of the proper form of the British delegation to the European Assembly. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a forthcoming response to that suggestion, I said that we on this side would be prepared to consider it.

The Times and The Guardian newspapers have both discussed these matters as being questions which should be surveyed and examined by the House of Commons. I do not, therefore, wish there to be any misunderstanding about the state of the game. I am not giving away any secrets, and I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have no objection to what I say on this. On the initiative of the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Leader of the House, we had a meeting to discuss the proposed ad hoc committee. At the same time we discussed the suggestion of a Select Committee to consider our delegation to the European Assembly. Although there had been no decision by the Opposition on either of those matters, I expressed the view that the Opposition would be prepared to participate in the manning of those two bodies, if they were established, on one modest condition, which was that the Government should agree to accept our Amendment on the subject. This Clause is the Amendment.

It was perfectly open to the Government—and it would have been the most graceful way for them to deal with the matter—to have come forward with the Amendment, or an Amendment in a slightly different form, and the matter could have proceeded on that basis. Our only condition was that Parliament

should retain control by the passage of an Amendment such as that which is incorporated in the Clause.

I hope it will be fully understood by all those who write about these matters, whether in The Times, The Guardian or elsewhere, that the Opposition have not rigidly refused to discuss these matters. We have not refused to participate in those bodies, but we did not think it was proper for us to participate in them while these matters were being discussed in Committee. We certainly have not rejected the idea of participating in these bodies if they were to be set up. All we ask is that the Government should make some concession in return and give us the elementary, modest, parliamentary safeguard for which we asked in the original debate, in the meeting which I had with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and for which we are now asking.

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also not dissent when I say that the meeting which I had with him did not formally end, but dissolved, in the sense that once we suggested that an Amendment might actually be made to the Bill to incorporate, however modestly, the conclusion of our findings, the Government lost interest.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Just to make the record clear, it dissolved because the Committee re-commenced its proceedings.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present until the end. He had to come into the Chamber because there were proceedings on the Bill, and my right hon. Friend had to come here to move an Amendment. Therefore, I was at the meeting for a bit longer than was the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will not dissent when I say that when I suggested this modest Amendment he expressed his distaste. It is extremely serious that the Government should have refused such a modest Amendment.
To take first the ad hoc committee, it is right that the House of Commons should have some possibility of surveying instruments coming from the Brussels Commission and other bodies of Europe before they are settled. That is a poor


third best to the precise detailed systems of parliamentary control which we and all hon. Members who oppose the Bill have been putting forward throughout the proceedings. Such proposals for surveillance over the instruments before they go to the Council of Ministers to be finalised are quite inadequate, but they would be a third best. No doubt we shall have to have a body to survey the best way of looking at these matters and a Select Committee of the House might be better than an ad hoc committee. The Select Committee on Procedure might be the best body. We are not opposed to it, but we hope that the Government will accept the Clause as a safeguard.
8.30 p.m.
I turn to the rather larger question, which has much more serious ramifications. I refer to the proposals for the composition of the European Assembly and the British delegation to it. This is a matter of major importance. Even enthusiastic supporters of the Common Market realise that the institutions which exist in Europe at present are undemocratic and irresponsible, in the sense that they are not responsible to any elected body. Both the Brussels Commission and the Council of Ministers are not responsible to any democratic parliament.
Some hon. Members argue that the way to deal with the situation is to transform the European Assembly into a properly effective democratic body. I am doubtful about that proposition because the more people who seek to remedy the position the more it will interfere with the rights, authority and influence of the House of Commons. We believe that the only proper democratic protections inside the Community must be founded in the House of Commons or in the other individual parliaments of Community countries. We feel that no substitute for that will be satisfactory. Moreover, the attempt to build the European Assembly into an effective, powerful, democratic assembly could mean a further erosion of the influence and authority of the House of Commons.
Whatever view may be taken, the question of how Britain is to send a delegation to such an Assembly is of paramount importance. It is also an extremely complex matter, as various

articles in the Press have suggested. We have sought to argue that, whatever decision may be made about such an Assembly, it must be brought back to the House in the end for decision. We are not prepared to have any other system.
The Chancellor of the Duchy may say that this would happen if we were to have a Select Committee to examine the matter, or if the matter could be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. No Select Committee of the House makes decisions on its own without being answerable to the House. But that proposition would not necessarily deal with the situation. We feel that it is a peculiar state of affairs when in a European Communities Bill, which seeks to deal with the changes required to carry Britain through into the enlarged Community, there is no reference to the composition of the British delegation to the European Assembly.
The Government may now suggest that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and I think that is a proper course. If we are to go ahead with the Bill and are to send a delegation to the European Assembly, all the ramifications of so doing could be considered by a Select Committee. Indeed, I wish that a Select Committee had sat much earlier on this subject so that it could by now have reported to the House. Many of the matters with which we have dealt so inadequately under the guillotine could have been much better dealt with if we had set up three or four Select Committees to examine the financial and constitutional aspects and if those Committees had reported to the House.
However, the Government's proposal for dealing with this matter was not that we should deal with the subject in open debate in the House. No doubt they will say that the matter will eventually come to the House. In this connection, I should like to read to the House a document which was sent by the Government Chief Whip to the Opposition, a letter dated 28th April this year. I read this document to show how serious are the constitutional implications of what is being proposed. Parts of this letter have already been published and the facts and figures are generally known, but I believe that the statements it contains should be known to the Committee.
The letter reads:
It would be very helpful to have your preliminary views about how our delegation to the European Parliament will be composed from 1973. As you know there are to be 36 delegates. Presumably this would break down into 18 Conservatives, 16 Labour and two Liberals (it could be 17 Labour and one Liberal).
The Liberals are not here to hear what was proposed in their name. It may be that they would withdraw their support if they knew how cavalierly the Government proposed treating them.
We then have to consider the breakdown between the two Houses. Our first thoughts are that we should have about one-third of our delegation from the Lords. If so, and you thought it would be appropriate to have four members from the Lords, the effect would be to equalise the numbers each side in the Commons. Until any new or alternative system is worked out the delegation will have to comprise mainly of members of the Commons and in view of the amount of time that has to be spent in the European Parliament, the delegation would have to be—in effect—permanently paired. We have also thought it would be right to make one of our places available for a Cross-Bench Peer, and you may feel that you might wish to do the same. The commitment of members of the delegation is very considerable—almost 100 days per year, mostly during United Kingdom parliamentary sessions. The annual session of the European Parliament begins on the second Tuesday in March and consists of (approximately) monthly sittings lasting from two days a week upwards. In addition the major committees (Political, budgetary, agriculture, etc.) meet about once a fortnight. None of this operates before next year, but it would be particularly helpful to know your preliminary attitude to the breakdown and construction of the delegation. I have given it much preparatory thought and would very much welcome your views.
There are many propositions, and I shall not delay the Committee by discussing them all. However the one preparatory thought to which much consideration was given was the possibility of a large number of the delegation in effect being permanently paired. In my opinion that is a very serious proposition.
As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, although I wish to elaborate it slightly now, during the war some Members of Parliament were given the right under the dispositions made by the war-time Government to be absent from Parliament for a period. One was Mr. Malcolm MacDonald who was sent as our High Commissioner to Canada. There were others. In order to do that the House of Commons had in effect to rupture the

relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents, and a special Bill had to be passed to give them the right to be away. Many hon. Members at the time disputed whether it was proper for the House as a collective body to interfere with the association between a Member of Parliament and his constituents.
Any proposal for Members of Parliament of this House to be away permanently paired over some of the most important period of a parliamentary year—even though it may have occurred in the secrecy of some of the arrangements of the past—is an extraordinary one to put before the House. What is even more extraordinary is that it should have been suggested by the Government that this was a proper way to deal with it, with out it being brought to the House of Commons at all—

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the reply to that letter?

Mr. Foot: I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Stanbrook: It will be helpful if they can be given to hon. Members now.

Mr. Rippon: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, perhaps I might interrupt him again. Of course, discussions through the usual channels do not preclude matters being brought to the House. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise the difficulties which have arisen in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Hon. Members have been brought back quite unnecessarily for Divisions when there have been equal numbers of Labour and Conservative Members in Strasbourg. Many people have thought that action should be taken to rectify the position.

Mr. Foot: The Whips are under our control. We do not have to accept that. I give the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) the answer to which he is entitled. I will read the whole letter. Our reply is in accordance with the White Paper. I said:
I am replying to your letter of 28th when you asked for my 'preliminary views' about the composition of delegates to the European Parliament.
This is not a matter which my Parliamentary Committee thinks can be properly dealt with by discussions between us. These matters all


come within the ambit of the Common Market Bill now before Parliament. Clearly the nature and composition of any European Parliament, in which this country might participate, is a matter which touches upon several of the issues in the Bill itself. We therefore suggest that the Government should put down amendments to the Bill dealing with this important question, and the House of Commons would then have the opportunity to discuss all aspects of the question in the open. The composition of a delegation to a Parliament is not a matter to be settled behind the backs of our Parliament.
That is and remains my view. We put down the Clause so that the matter could not be dealt with behind the back of Parliament.
In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, I make my position clear. I understand that there are many matters in the House of Commons which can be dealt with only through the usual channels, and if those channels are blocked, or incapable of operating, there are many difficulties in the conduct of parliamentary business. I also understand that there are some questions which touch upon major constitutional matters, as this one does, which can be dealt with properly only in the House of Commons itself. I say that as one who has spent most of his parliamentary life on the back benches. I have not changed my view because I have been transferred, perhaps temporarily, from the back to the front.
I have always held the view that many of the questions of the composition of delegations, particularly if they are to official bodies, should be dealt with in the open as much as possible. These are not matters to be dealt with by systems of patronage if that can be avoided. I am not saying it always can be avoided, but in the main I believe it can. Certainly, when we have anything so official as the composition of a delegation to a permanent European assembly, particularly one that is to be given considerable powers which are to be transferred from us, it is a matter of major significance.
The Government's suggestion was that we settle this matter through the usual channels. Had it not been for our reply, perhaps they would have continued to think that we could settle it that way. This is not a question of being pro- or anti-Common Market. I am sure that no hon. Member will argue that this is

not a question for the House of Commons. If we wish, we can insist that the matter shall eventually be brought to the House of Commons.
We are not laying down in the Clause how the composition of the delegation should be comprised. We are not saying what should be the numbers; we are not saying that we are opposed to the principle of having Members paired over a long period; we are not prejudging any of the issues of merit. All we are saying is that the final decision should be brought back to and passed by resolution of the House of Commons so that the House of Commons will have the same kind of control over the composition of the delegations as it has, as I said on a previous occasion, over the composition of the Kitchen Committee or some of the other Committees of the House.
This is an extremely modest proposal. It would not interfere with the proposals which the Government wish to advance and which we will certainly consider with open minds—the question of participation in the ad hoc committees or Select Committees or of referring these matters to the Select Committee on Procedure. We are prepared to consider these matters, in as objective a spirit as we can. All we are saying is that the Government should in return incorporate into the Bill not a major Amendment but a modest one which at least has this safeguard. Perhaps I can guess the reason why the Government did not like our proposition. Everything else in my speech I have proved, but we had a conversation with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on this matter and they did not like our proposals. I presume this was because they did not wish to have any Amendment to the Bill. We know that that would involve other difficulties.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

8.45 p.m.

How we are to keep final control over this matter in the Bill, which deals specifically with this question, is more important than the prestige of the Government. Having decided they would not have any Amendment to the Bill on other grounds, which no doubt we will debate at other


times, that decision, if it was a decision to refuse any Amendment to the Bill, was outrageous. It means that not only were they rejecting individual Amendments which, on their merits, might otherwise have been accepted, and therefore the House of Commons passes a worse Bill, but, having made up their mind not to accept any Amendments, they do not care about all the other arguments.

That was one of the reasons why I thought the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had treated the Committee with gross discourtesy. I do not believe it is because he is naturally discourteous, but because the Government have decided not to accept any Amendment anyhow, and have conveyed this feeling to the Committee. We have argued from every angle, and almost none of of the Amendments conflicts with the principle of entry, because such Amendments are forbidden. We have sought to improve the Bill; we have sought to change it by proposing Amendments concerning matters which we are entitled to discuss. Yet the Government have refused Amendments of this modest character.

I trust that we shall have the enthusiastic support of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are supporters of entry into the European Economic Community on this matter. They may say, "We did not know this was happening." Some of them have written rude letters to the newspapers on the composition of the European Parliament. If they are interested enough to write letters and articles in the newspapers on this subject, they might be interested to come and debate it when we provide time under the guillotine procedure.

I am glad to see some of my hon. Friends here. I do not know whether they will participate in the debate. However, I hope they will understand that the new Clause is a genuine attempt to ensure that this Parliament keeps control over these matters, control which we will not necessarily have if these matters are referred only to Committees afterwards. Once the Bill is passed the major legislation dealing with it will be out of our control and we shall have lost the possibility of enforcing our rights.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Taking the long or middle term view, the fact

that we shall be in the Market in January, 1973, and that we have no Report stage, as suggested by my hon. Friend, may I ask him to consider the proposition that it is just feasible—no more than that—that the Parliamentary Labour Party at its annual conference could take a decision whereby we shall be under instructions not to send anybody to the European Assembly? That would put the Government in some difficult straits.

Mr. Foot: It may be so.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman says, "It may be so". Surely he wants to repudiate the suggestion that Members of Parliament act on instructions from outside?

Mr. Foot: I did not interpret what my hon. Friend said as implying that. As for Members of Parliament acting under instructions, that is an extraordinary state of affairs. I am not quite sure by what process of spontaneous combustion Government supporters have agreed that there shall be no Amendment whatever to a Bill of this character. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not talk to me about not acting under any kind of instructions.

Mr. Rippon: From outside.

Mr. Foot: From outside. Everybody knows the procedures by which the Labour Party defines its policy. It is a more democratic procedure than that by which the Tories arrived at their suggestion that it was only with the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people that they would be able to carry these matters into effect. That was not passed at any conference. It may be partly on that account that the Prime Minister thought he could tear up his propositions.
I will conclude on this aspect. It may be said that we do not have to worry very much about the European Assembly—that we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about that. After all, M. Pompidou is against it. If he can control the British exchange rate he can make sure what form the European Assembly will take, especially since, as we heard today, the new Prime Minister of France is the very man who teaches us to stand by our obligations.
We had a debate earlier today about standing by our obligations, and we have been lectured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his legal friends as to how we must stand by them. That is why we must be careful what the obligations are. How does the new Prime Minister of France talk about his obligations to the people with whom he signed? What he said has been quoted in the House by myself and by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). M. Messmer, the new Prime Minister of France, dealing with the question of New Zealand said:
We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market she (New Zealand) came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports to Britain for a period of five years.
Condescended! He is almost as condescending as the French President.
We have condescended to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports to Britain for a period of five years. If New Zealand now refuses to export to France this limit of five years could be reconsidered and reduced and we could look at the application with disfavour.
When we quoted that passage before it did not make as much impact upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends as might have been expected. But we are now quoting the Prime Minister of France, on the 4th July—I suppose that it will be known as "British Dependence day". M. Pompidou says that he is not going to allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in unless he has fixed his exchange rate according to the prescription of M. Pompidou. Perhaps he has a little longer to think these matters out than he thought—unless he is going to comply exactly at the prescribed date. One way or the other, having saved the country a fortnight ago by floating the £—either he will push the country back into catastrophy by putting us back on a fixed rate, according to the prescription of M. Pompidou or—

Mr. Rippon: These are matters outside the scope of the election of Members of Parliament to the parliamentary assembly but, for the record, on 29th June the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
I have made it clear that we intend to return to a fixed parity as soon as possible

when conditions permit. I recognise that there are some in this House who favour the permanent floating of the £. I would only add that I have spelled out my own view's at some length on previous occasions."—[Official Report, 29th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1706.]

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman surely notes the difference in tone between that statement of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and the statement of the French President on British dependence day, 4th July, when he said that an indispensable condition of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community is that we should have returned to a fixed parity before the date of entry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that that does not affect what we are discussing. He has always tried to pretend, in his breezy manner, that all these matters are settled and that nothing will be altered by arguments of this nature.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke without the arrogance of the French President. I do not know whether he thinks that that statement is acceptable, and whether Britain should listen to that kind of instruction. I can understand his saying that when the Prime Minister met M. Pompidou the terms were fixed so clearly that M. Pompidou was merely repeating what the Prime Minister had said to him on that occasion. But what M. Pompidou thought when he made the agreement at the previous meeting, and opened the door for Britain's entry, was that we would stand by a fixed parity—and M. Pompidou, in his statement yesterday, says that our unilateral action was a departure from the agreement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he has to sort out these matters so he need not complain about the whole question. He may have more time than he expects, that is if he is going to retain the power of Britain to settle the exchange rate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not talk about settling the rate "as soon as possible". President Pompidou does not say "as soon as possible". He says "1st January". The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have much more time on his hands than he thinks. Alternatively, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may accept the dictation of the French President.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will begin to realise, even at


the end of these debates, that events will provide the real judgment on the Bill. Events are already overtaking the Government. Events are proving that what the Government have said in the course of this Committee stage is untrue. Events will prove that to be so next year even more than they are proving it now, if by any chance we have to enter on 1st January.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has plenty of time, if he wants to, to settle these matters properly and fairly. Why not accept the Clause? Why not say that whatever may be settled by the Select Committee, whatever may be settled in further discussions, eventually it will be brought back to this House of Commons to decide two simple questions, the form in which we shall participate in the ad hoc committee to discover the instruments which come out of Brussels, and the form in which we are to settle the composition of our delegation to the European Assembly.
The Government have only to say "Yes". If they do, they will at least show that our charge that they have determined to drive the Bill through without any Amendment is misplaced. At least one of our accusations will be disproved. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has any respect left for the rights of Members, to agree that this is a matter which should be settled by the House of Commons and not by the Executive acting alone and contemptuously of the rights of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Percy Grieve: All my life I have found that one of the labels which the Labour Party is most anxious to attach to itself can be summed up in the word "progressive". I suppose that, having regard to his position in the spectrum of politics of the Labour Party, no one in this Committee would lay greater claim to that label than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to whose speech we have just listened.
I am, however, bound to say that if one examines the word "progressive" in its true meaning one finds it astonishing that those who arrogate to themselves that label are those who, in the second half of the twentieth century, turn their

backs upon any concept of international co-operation in the European field and upon the ideal of European unity which is the finest ideal to have emerged from the war.
9.0 p.m.
The speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale demonstrated this turning of the back by the Labour Party and their rejection throughout our debates on this Bill of that European ideal to which our adhesion to the European Economic Community will materially commit us. Turning their backs, Labour Members have sought every opportunity in our debates to denigrate what not only we on this side but large numbers of their own colleagues are seeking to do to secure adhesion to the European Economic Community.
This Clause is not what it appears to be on the face of it, a constructive contribution to our discussions, but another attempt to undermine the efforts which the House and the country are making to secure adhesion to the Community and to take part in the movement towards that united Europe which I believe will be one of the greatest foundations for future peace in Europe and in the world.
I agree at once that selection of the delegation from this Parliament to the European Assembly will present very great difficulties to Members in servicing that Assembly. Let there be no doubt about that. Those of us, and there are many on this side of the Committee, who serve on the Council of Europe know the very great efforts that are required in order to serve our constituencies, the House and the Council of Europe. Those problems will be not less but greater for those who will be serving in the European Assembly.
Article 138(3) of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community looks forward to the day when there will be elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. It states:
The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.


I have no doubt that the time will come when there will be a form of direct election to the European Assembly. It is a day to which I greatly look forward. I believe that the House and the country are greatly indebted to all those who are giving considerable thought to the way in which this shall be done in future, and not least to the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), who has made his own proposals which are a serious contribution to our discussion.
But it would be idle to believe that in the period which will elapse between the end of our present debates here and our adhesion to the European Economic Community on 1st January next, those problems can be resolved. They are unlikely to be resolved in that time. For that reason I believe that the best course open to the House is to see whether, through the usual channels on which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has cast such aspersions, we can arrive at a mutual means of providing for the delegation to the Assembly in the same way as over the years, satisfactorily I hope, the delegations to the Council of Europe and to Western European Union have been selected.
I do not see how it is possible in this Bill, without prejudging problems which yet have to be solved and without prejudging the form in which the delegation shall be selected, and the way in which the delegates, when there is direct election, shall serve both in this Parliament and in the European Parliament, conveniently to incorporate provisions for selection which would not, as it were, put selection into a straitjacket. This seems completely unrealistic. It is an idle dream to think that between now and 1st January, 1973, we could conceivably arrive at a method of selecting the delegation which could be properly incorporated in an Act of Parliament.
For these reasons I oppose the new Clause. I hope that the Committee will reject it. I oppose it also because I believe that, like so many of the proposals made during our debates, the real reason for making this proposal is not what appears on its face, a constructive contribution to our discussion, but yet another attempted blow aimed at our adhesion to Europe, which is likely to be the most important way in which we can

provide for the peace of the world ant the future of Britain.

Mr. George Darling: I disagree with almost every word that has come from the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will not be surprised if I say that I agreed with almost everything he said about the need for the new Clause. I am sorry that it appears that the Government will not accept it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has said, there are two other new Clauses we wish to discuss. Therefore, I shall not make a long speech. I shall concentrate on the question that arises if we have to send 36 delegates—from the House of Commons, I hope; not from the other place—to the European Parliament.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale on only two counts. One is that I think the strengthening of democratic control by the European Parliament and its committees over the Commission and the Council of Ministers will help to strengthen the influence of the national Parliaments on the work of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. That is something we can debate.
I disagree with my hon. Friend, secondly, in that in the new Clause we are asking that
Any selection of or provision for selection of United Kingdom delegates…shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons.
This is somewhat in conflict with my view that each party should decide for itself how it selects its delegates. If the Labour Party contribution to 36 is 17, the Labour Party should decide for itself how those 17 will be selected or elected. I strongly advocate that view.
I want particularly to deny the proposition that keeps coming forward that a delegate to the European Assembly and the committees of the Assembly will somehow be divorced from the work of the House of Commons, will have to spend a long time on the Continent and will require to be permanently paired. I disagree with all that.
Let us take what will be the situation in the European Parliament for the next


six months. From the beginning of July to the end of the year, it is due to meet for 19 days in five sessions. But two of those sessions, lasting seven days, will take place during our parliamentary Recess, so that whoever goes will be away for 12days in six months. I have worked it out that this will amount to about 25 to 30 days a year during the time that this Parliament is meeting. As for the suggestion that this will interfere with constituency work, I remind the Committee that the European Parliament does not meet at weekends. It meets for four or five days a week, and sometimes for only two days in a week. Every Member of the House of Commons who gets selected or elected as a delegate can return to his constituency as often as he likes at weekends. What is more, I do not know whether in the course of the letter my hon. Friend has received the suggestion is made that the European Parliament and its committees will take up 100 days a year. The maximum number that anybody attends is 70.
If the work of the committees of the European Parliament and their methods of operation are improved, the two days a week could be reduced by one-half. To a large extent, the ineffectiveness of the European Parliament and its committees arises from the stupid way the committees work. Anybody who has examined the working of the European Parliament and its committees can see clearly how the procedures, the methods and the servicing need greatly to be improved. If somebody set about it in the right way, far more effective work could be accomplished in far less time.
Most of the committee meetings will take place within an hour or an hour and a half by plane from Heathrow. If the proper transport is established to get people backwards and forwards from Parliament to Heathrow and from the airport on the other side to wherever the committee is meeting, there will be no need for a great deal of time to be spent away from the House of Commons at these committee meetings. Sometimes a committee meets for two days. After voting in the House of Commons, a Member can catch the night ferry or a night plane and arrive the other side in the morning. I do not suggest that this should be done regularly, but it can be

done. A member could spend two days there and then return to carry on with his work here, just as if he had been attending a Select Committee outside the House.
I was attending the meeting of a committee at The Hague last week which had to send for a Member of the House of Commons to take part in a discussion about the proceedings for the next Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Member arrived, concluded his business there and returned to the House of Commons to take part in the vote on the Motion of censure last Thursday.
I therefore support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I hope that the Government will think again about rejecting the Clause. Many hon. Members, journalists and letter-writers to The Times talk a lot of nonsense about the amount of time that must be spent in the European Parliament and its committees. If we set about it in the right way, we can make the European Parliament more effective and at the same time do what my hon. Friend wants, which is to strengthen the hands of the national Parliaments over the Commission's work.
I hope that the letter that my hon. Friend received will not be withdrawn and that we can set about establishing the representation on sensible lines, assuming that we are to go into Europe. The sensible lines are to let each party decide for itself how it is to select or elect its own membership.

Sir J. Foster: The question is: should the Clause be accepted? The method which should be adopted to select Members is not directly in point. I was interested, however, in what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said.
I shall try to persuade hon. Members that this form of Clause is not the right way to deal with a problem which cuts across parties. The request in the Clause—
Any selection of or provision for selection of United Kingdom delegates to the European Assembly or members to serve on any Parliamentary committee…shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons
—presupposes that somebody has decided what the selection or provision for selection is.
The Clause is inapt. It deals with procedure and with the conventions of the House of Commons. For instance, so many Supply Days are for the Opposition. The House of Commons works with the minority allowing the Government to get their business through and the majority allowing the Opposition to have quite a lot of rights and a lot of methods of voicing their opinion. Parliament cannot work properly without that arrangement. It would work in a very different way without it, because the majority have only to pass a Bill saying that no one on the Opposition side should be allowed to speak to give the Government a very easy time. The whole thing depends upon agreement between the parties. That is part of our democratic way. All elected assemblies have to deal with this.
9.15 p.m.
But here there is a new problem where agreement must be reached between the parties and it must be reached under the conventions of the constitution. If the Clause was accepted what is to stop the Government saying the Labour Party shall not be represented in the European Parliament? There is no legal way of preventing that, but the minority must be allowed to have their say.
A Select Committee is only a very important way of having a talk between the usual channels. A talk between the usual channels will decide whether each side chooses its own people, which is much the most likely way of solving the problem. Each side could decide how many representatives it wanted from the House of Lords. I am not trying to prejudge what is the best way but I am suggesting that the Clause will not be suitable. We have to have a Select Committee and it must be debated by the House but it must not be subject to approval in the usual sense because unless approval is within very limited spheres the majority could wipe out the minority in the European Parliament. That is not what is intended.

Sir Robin Turton: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain why every Select Committee of this House is subject to the approval of the House by Resolution of the House? He must try to get some knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

Sir J. Foster: All I am saying is that it should be done by agreement between the usual channels and then subject to debate in the House. Otherwise, the majority could oppress the minority and it would therefore be for the protection of the Labour Party that the Clause should not be passed.
I am assuming that the only wish is that what is being sought should be done in the best way. If it is wished to put difficulties into the way of the Bill I can see the point of trying to force the Clause through the Committee. But I am not assuming that that is what is desired. I am assuming there is a problem to be dealt with and, in my submission, on the selection of members it is not right to seek approval of the House of Commons for matters which must depend on the conventions in the functioning of the House. There must be agreement about some form of voting or not voting or else we must alter our voting procedure. It seems ridiculous that if we had a Motion of censure and five Members of the Government were down in a field because of engine failure, a General Election would have to be called. I see the Opposition Chief Whip smiling, but I am assuming he will be very careful not to run this risk. One could, I suppose, alter our voting procedure in the House, but that also would be a matter of convention.
It is not sufficient just to say that no one should be paired. I understand the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to be against pairing. I can understand his objection to that—

Mr. Darling: I understand our complaint to be against the idea that, for a fairly long period, hon. Members would be permanently paired. I do not know whether I am correctly paraphrasing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, but I understand that to be the point. We say that Members are paired for the job which they do, just as we arrange it now for the Council of Europe.

Sir J. Foster: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be against pairing for the people who have these jobs to do. How-ever, if I am wrong in my understanding, so much the better.
Here again, one has to be careful about this and have a lot of conventions between the two sides. All of us as parliamentarians—I say this subject to the stricture of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton)—understand the conventions of the House. We understand that this place works only through a partnership between the minority and majority parties. It would not work otherwise.
We have to start from this angle: let us see what we can agree about in the way we deal with the European Parliament. I feel sure that, once the Bill is passed, the Labour Party, as it has in the past, both when the majority and the minority party, will make the democratic procedure work. But it will not work if our conventions and agreements are all subject to the approval of the House of Commons, for then the majority party could get its own way and wipe the minority party right down by insisting on things on which it ought not to insist. It is very unwise, therefore, to propose this Clause. If it is proposed merely to make the passage of the Bill more difficult, that is another matter, but the suggestions in it are unwise.
The second part of the Clause deals with the scrutiny of Community secondary legislation. Here again, I assume that everyone takes it that the Bill will be passed. But I recognise that there is a serious problem here. I raised it with one of the letter writers to The Times, The conventions of the constitution do not apply here in quite the same way.
Both political parties will be anxious to ensure that we have some form of parliamentary control over the legislation which is passed. That is certainly my view. For this purpose, resolutions of the Community of importance to this country—even a directive might be of importance—must be brought to the notice of the House at an early stage. But we must in this context remember that, under our constitution, once we have elected a majority party and it has chosen a Government, the Executive has wide powers not all of which are subject to the direct control of Parliament. Indirect control, yes, but not direct control. In the treaty-making power, for example, there is a wide gap where control by the House of Commons is not

very effective. In any case, a House of over 600 Members is not the best instrument for controlling detail.
All this needs careful consideration. I suggest that it might call for the setting up of a committee consisting not only of parliamentarians but having within it some form of outside representation—partly Members of Parliament, partly people with experience of foreign legislative processes, perhaps a few academics—

Mr. Darling: Oh, no.

Sir J. Foster: The matter would then be put before a purely parliamentary Committee to sift it through. Again, one would have to go by agreement between the parties. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult, but, in my submission, it is no way of doing it to say that it must be subject to the approval of Parliament. The crunch will come at the stage of agreement in the Committee. The matter will then be debated by Parliament, and alterations may be made in the light of the debate, as the Government or Opposition see the force of recommendations or suggestions made. But just to have approval or non-approval is an inept way of dealing with these subjects because there does not seem to be any way of amendment. If there are amendments, the agreement of both sides must be obtained.
For those reasons, I think that the passing of this Clause would be completely useless and that it should not take its place in the Bill.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Miss Harvie Anderson, for calling me because I was bursting to speak whilst listening to the outpourings of rubbish from the two hon. and learned Members on the Government side whom I believe to be, in their varied ways, distinguished but who on this issue are obviously somewhat at sea. I wish to put one or two simple questions which may make the point clear.
The letter to which reference has been made says that Members who serve on the European Assembly would need to be away from the House of Commons for perhaps 100 days a year. That has been ably demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who has served for so long on the Council of Europe and knows


many European institutions. Has anyone considered the real reasons why we are paired? One is that we need not be present on an occasion when we would otherwise be voting. In fact, that is the only reason. I should have thought that a similar situation would apply to the European Assembly.
The first question we should ask about the European Assembly is whether it votes. I see no reason for a Member saying that he must be in Brussels in order to vote at an Assembly which does not vote. I understand that its more normal custom is to endeavour to reconcile the opinions of all parties in the Assembly and to arrive at an agreed resolution. Even if it did vote, the outcome would not matter because it has very little power. Admittedly one may wish to be in Brussels to make a speech. But is it suggested—I doubt whether other European parliamentarians would accept the fact—that every one of our 36-strong delegation will make a speech on 100 days a year? It is possible that a Member of the House of Commons serving on the European Assembly will consider that on a given day there is a more important reason for his being here rather than in Brussels—unless he simply wants a trip to Brussels.
The sheer arrogance of the Government Chief Whip, who suggests that Members should be permanently paired is beyond belief. I sincerely hope that every Member will decide for himself where he wishes to be. I hope that every one of the 36 people in our delegation will decide for himself, according to his individual conscience, where it is more important for him to be. On one occasion it might be important for him to be here during a debate on the equivalent of the Third Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill if he was a member of my party—or, indeed, if he was a Conservative. Members may legitimately feel that they do not need to be here to discuss a White Fish Authority order and that they should be in Brussels to discuss the European agricultural policy.
These matters cannot be determined on a basis of permanent pairing. The 36 members of the delegation will be competent, reasonable people and they should decide for themselves.

Sir J. Foster: What will happen if a large number of members of one party

feel that they should be in Brussels and the others do not? How would the voting be arranged?

Mr. English: I suggest that the ancient principles of the House of Commons should be followed.
We have long experience of this sort of difficulty, and that is precisely why we have pairing. It is also precisely why we have Whips on both sides who say to Members "We know that you are totally bored by this subject. We know that it has been raised by the other party. But it is desirable that some of you should stay so that we may keep a respectable majority." I should have thought that since we are quite used to reconciling difficulties of this character in general the addition of one more additional case would not be beyond the wit of the Patronage Secretary and his opposite number on this side.
9.30 p.m.
I turn to more serious issues, because I think they are more serious issues. Everybody has made the simple assumption that the delegation should consist of members of both parties. I would point out that this is an assumption based, as somebody said, upon the traditions and conventions of this place in the past. I think it will be quite clear to everybody that conventions of the past are not necessarily appropriate to a completely different situation in the future. There is every reason why, when we set up a Select Committee for example, it should consist of Members from both parties; it should consist of a distribution of opinion because it is a body which will report to the House and it would be futile if it reported only one opinion, which the House as a whole might not share. However, when we as a country are represented elsewhere it does not necessarily follow that we should be represented by Members from both parties. It may well be that we should be represented only by Members from the governing party in the State, which party the electorate decides.
One extremely important nation in Europe which adopts this principle is France. France sends to the very Assembly we are talking about a delegation which does not include the second party in the State. The Italians include in their delegation representatives of the


second party in the State, the Communists. It is not for me to decide whether the French are right or wrong, but we should discuss here—this is the point of the new Clause—what procedure we should adopt.
It might be that the House of Commons as a whole would prefer to have a delegation representing both parties but it might be—and if hon. Members would consider the implications they would see there is a case for the alternative view—that the House would in fact prefer the delegation to consist of Members from the majority party in the State, not perhaps out of a fit of pique by the Opposition but as a general principle that the members of the delegation should belong to the party governing the State, since they represent this country in a European institution, as, indeed, it is the party governing the State which is represented in the Council of Ministers. I would say that is something which commends itself for discussion here and that it cannot well be taken for granted.
Finally, I would say that I do part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he says, in effect, that he distrusts the possibilities of direct election to the European Assembly. I do not. I think the Committee knows the consistency of my views about entry into the Common Market. I have been against it continuously, even when my own party was in power, and I am against it still, but once we are in it I would wish to democratise it. If we are to hand over to a European body power—as indeed the Bill does—to tax and legislate, personally I wish to try to restore some of that power to the electorate as a whole, even if it is to be a European electorate. I should like the people of this country to decide first whether they wish to enter the Common Market or not; but if they were to decide that we should go in, and that we should remain in, we should set our mind to considering the implications of the undemocratic nature of the institutions themselves. It is, in my view a pity that the Government have taken the most extreme Gaullist line on this question of democracy inside Europe. It is a tremendous pity because we could have gone into Europe and could have made it quite plain that we are a democratic

nation and that we believe that the European institutions should be democratic too.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said we could not possibly within the next three months draft a Clause to settle the method of selection or election of our representatives to the European Assembly. I am not an hon. and learned Member as he is, but I suggest that if he would look at my new Clause 8 he would see that there is nothing in it—I do not think there is anything in it—which could not be carried out under the law of England. I am not suggesting that he would agree with the principle of my Clause, but I suggest that it is a perfectly feasible proposition.
I should have liked to have seen this Committee discussing not merely the possibility of whether the House should discuss the election of the delegation but whether we should ourselves allow the electorate to determine the composition of the delegation, and there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to prevent us from doing so. This would solve the problem of whether peers or Members of the House of Commons should be included. A peer could stand for election; if he was elected, well and good; if he was not, he would not be a representative. Meanwhile, as it is, the suggestion that we should include Members of the House of Lords in such a delegation is ridiculous.
Do we want to be the laughing stock of Europe? Do we want to be the only country sending a delegation consisting of unelected persons? In assemblies in Europe which have two Chambers, the representatives in both Chambers are elected. I know of no other Assembly within the 10 countries where the representatives of one House are not elected. Do we want to be made the laughing stock of Europe by sending representatives of an unelected House, representing nobody but themselves, or the Government that appointed them in the case of life peers, or their ancestors in the case of hereditary peers?
I suggest that we could well have applied the alternative and said that we would have a democratic delegation. The Government and, alas, my own Front


Bench are not as yet ready to countenance such a radical thought as that we should actually elect a delegation. That being so, I believe that all hon. Members who believe in democracy will support this new Clause [Interruption.] In referring to my own Front Bench I am speaking of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. There may be others on the Front Bench who disagree.

Mr. Grieve: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that foreign countries and their delegations are far more likely to judge our delegation by the quality of its Members than by the fact that they come from one or other House, and that many Members from the other place have served extremely well on the Council of Europe and will serve extremely well in the European Parliament?

Mr. English: I have always believed that the quality of members selected by a democratic electorate, though it may be different, is rather more varied than the quality of members selected by any other method of election or selection. I strongly suspect that throughout a large part of Europe the fact that our delegation was elected would make it respected. The hon. and learned Member for Solihull has had a distinguished career. At one time he was associated with General de Gaulle during the war, but I do not take the Gaullist view that democracy is to be frowned upon and selection is better.
However, I have made my point. I would prefer us to be as democratic as possible rather than to take a perpetual Pompidou line as the Government Front Bench does. At least the House of Commons, as the Clause requires, should discuss these issues as and when they arise. On that basis I support the new Clause.

Sir Robin Turton: I wish to be brief, although I have to cover a fair amount of ground because of the history of this and my peculiar position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure.
To take first the question of the delegation to the European Assembly, there has always been a good deal of dissatisfaction in the House of Commons over the system of selection of members to the

Council of Europe and Western European Union. Those are the only cases where selection of members is by the Executive and not by the House. Representation on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is decided by the Speaker on the advice of an advisory committee of Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) was in the same position as I was in the selection of Members to the Council of Europe. In 1954 I had to make the selection and faced a good deal of criticism. The complaint was that certain Members had been on the Council of Europe for 10 years and it was said that it was the party hacks who went. This is nothing to do with whether one is pro- or anti- the Common Market. It is a House of Commons matter and it is vital that the selection of members to the European Assembly is brought before this House, as happens with the appointment of every Select Committee.
The situation distresses me. I have great respect for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), but he obviously has not studied the matter in detail.: Those who have done the ordinary back bench "hack" work for many years have examined the system of the appointment of committees. I think my hon. and learned Friend exaggerated the importance of the party caucus. The value of putting a matter on the Order Paper is that it is brought out into the light. The House of Commons and the general public then know who will carry out this very important service of working in the European Assembly.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) made a fair point. If there were to be outsiders on such a committee, it would of course be unlike the normal Select Committee. The House would have to approve any decision, and it may be a good thing to have as delegates members from universities, but the whole matter must be handled by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) appeared to suggest that the problem of the selection of members for the European Assembly should be put to the ad hoc committee. That may have been a slip of the tongue, but I should


emphasise that these are two quite separate points. It is not a matter of procedure. The question of selection is a matter entirely for the House of Commons and should be dealt with by the House of Commons.
I turn to the matter of procedure, and I have had a certain amount of experience in this respect. We have been looking around the subject but not actually looking at it, because of all the curious letters which have been passing between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. That has prevented anything being done for a long time.

Mr. Rippon: No letter passed from me.

Sir Robin Turton: I beg my right hon. and learned Friend's pardon. It was a letter which passed between the two Chief Whips. We heard it read by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a little earlier.
I must emphasise that it is important that this matter should be looked at urgently. The subject was mentioned as long ago as last November by the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
This is not such a narrow matter as that which is embraced by the terms of the new Clause. We must have not merely proposals for scrutiny of Community secondary legislation, but a much wider inquiry as to how far the House will have to change the whole of its procedures and many of its Standing Orders to carry out the duties involved should we become a member of the wider European Community.
We have been a little late in dealing with this matter. A Select Committee, whether it be the Select Committee on Procedure or some other Committee, should have got down to this matter months ago if a report was to be ready in time for accession to the Community on 1st January, 1973. It is a pity that the Government have not moved earlier on this matter. We in the Select Committee on Procedure have felt frustrated by not being allowed to go forward with this inquiry earlier.

Mr. English: I accept all the right hon. Gentleman said—bar one small point. Will he accept that many of us have a certain dubiety about the Select Committee on Procedure as at present constituted since, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman himself, it consists almost entirely of people who believe passionately in Britain going into the Common Market, whereas we all know that half the Members of the House do not?

Sir Robin Turton: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West has misunderstood the position. This is not a matter between those who are pro-Market and those who are anti-Market. It is a House of Commons matter.
I have been very fortunate in the membership of my Committee. We have considered every problem that has been put to us, and, curiously enough, in our dozen or so reports we have reached unanimous conclusions. That is not to say that my Committee wants the work. I only remind the Government that this is a very big job and that the House is failing in not having appointed a body to look at this matter months ago.
As for the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) that this is not a matter for a parliamentary Committee and that it can be done by the Study of Parliament Group, in my view that is to make the greatest surrender of our parliamentary rights that I have ever heard in all my time in the House. This is a matter that we must do. Every other member State in the Community has looked at the matter before entry. With the exception of France, in the course of negotiations for entry they have made special provisions for parliamentary control.
I fear what may happen to this Parliament if we enter on 1st January, 1973, without any expert examination and without any adjustment of our rules. Let us take the one small matter of financial control. How are we to work our system of financial control which is geared to a financial year which ends on 5th April, with a financial control which is geared to the end of the year?

Mr. George Cunningham: We shall have to change ours.

Sir Robin Turton: That may be so. However, seven years ago the Select Committee on Procedure looked at the possibility. We were given expert advice from the Treasury that if we moved the close of our financial year from the present date to the end of the year it would make life impossible in the Civil Service. It would mean changing the whole parliamentary system. The Committee was told that it was quite unworkable.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I conclude my remarks by asking the Government either to accept the Clause or to make it clear that they will see that a Committee is appointed immediately to look at this problem. Whichever Committee is given the task, it will have to be given power to go abroad in order to study what is happening in the other countries of the Six. I do not think that it should try to do it by taking evidence alone. It will require power to move abroad and, naturally, rather special powers because otherwise the work cannot be done.
I warn the Committee that unless we can get this procedure right, Parliament will not have the powers and we shall not be as good representatives as those from the other countries of the Six. We must see to it that there is proper consideration not only of the draft proposals but of the directives. That is probably the subject of the next Amendment.
If we fail, we shall fail Parliament, and we shall thoroughly deserve that fate.

Mr. George Cunningham: I must first apologise to the Committee for having missed the opening of this debate. I intend to intervene briefly on a narrow point.
I agree wholeheartedly with every word that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) has said. In his dual capacities of Father of the House and Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, when he speaks with the strength that he has employed today it behoves the whole Treasury Bench to pay great attention to what he says.
It will be a very sad day when this House of Commons has to take lessons from the German Bundestag on parliamentary methods of controlling the

Executive and on methods of controlling the actions of the Executive in the Community. The Bundestag, as no doubt has been referred to earlier, has methods of doing the second of those two things which no one in the Committee, certainly no one representing the Government, has yet begun to suggest we should adopt. That illustrates the fact that the House, which likes to cherish the idea that it is still in a vigorous state of life, has fallen upon days of decadence. Not only does it not have the power but it does not notice that it no longer has the power and does not take steps to restore its former position.
The narrower point which I want to state in answer to the case, if that is the rightword for it, stated by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) relates to a recent incident which involved me and in which it was extremely important that a certain Select Committee, of which I am a member, was one whose composition had to be approved by the House.
A few weeks ago, for reasons which I shall not go into, it occurred to the authorities that it would be a desirable thing to expel me from that Committee. It occurred to them at roughly the same time to take similar action in respect of one or two other hon. Members. It so happened that the action in respect of the other hon. Members related to bodies or positions which were not within the control of the House. One of them concerned the delegation to the Council of Europe. A change was made in the representation of the House at the Council of Europe without the House knowing anything about it or having a chance to discuss it, on a ground which had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the person involved or the desirability of his continuing to form part of our delegation to the Council of Europe.
Precisely the same point applied in my own case. I am a member of the Select Committee on Expenditure, and as a result of what I shall euphemistically call a misunderstanding it was desired to remove me, quite wrongly, from that Committee. However, because the Committee has to have its composition determined by the House, it could not be done. I was able to stop the wrong action—it is now admittedly a wrong action—whichwas being taken erroneously as


part of party discipline. It was only stoppable because the Committee's composition has to be decided by the House.
I am devoted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), but it occasionally happens that Whips on both sides of the House get things wrong and get over-enthusiastic in the job of party discipline. I do not know but I doubt whether that situation will change radically in the near future. Therefore, it is vital for that if for no other reason that the composition of Committees of the House and the composition of all delegations representing the House should be decided by the House. It is not only an academic matter, by which I mean the usual channels determining something, whether it is formally decided by the House or not. The power of formal appointment by the House can in certain circumstances mean a great deal, and the incident to which I have referred illustrates its importance.

Mr. Rippon: It might be helpful if I intervene at this stage to answer some of the points which have been raised.
As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, the new Clause refers to two quite different but equally important matters. The Government have always recognised Parliament's concern with both. There is no question of the House of Commons not being able to discuss and, if necessary, decide these matters either through the usual channels, about which the hon. Gentleman knows more than I do because he is part of them, or on the Floor of the House.
I was grateful for the indication in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the Opposition were now ready to discuss matters of procedure and how we should deal with some of these issues through an ad hoc committee, a Select Committee or the Select Committee on Procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) was a little unfair in his strictures on the Government. We raised these matters over five months ago and suggested that they should be dealt with in the way the Housenormally deals with them.
I am in a little difficulty over what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who is the shadow Leader of the House, said about what has gone on through the usual channels. I have no objection to

the hon. Gentleman indicating what my views were at the meeting. My views on these matters are not secret. I am not part of the usual channels. I thought it was a confidential meeting, but no matter. We have no transcript of these proceedings. However, I have said all along that I did not believe these matters could be dealt with by way of Amendment to the Bill; they are matters of procedure over which the House of Commons has and always would have full control. It is important that there should be a proper degree of flexibility. We discussed the ways that other Parliaments dealt with these matters and how Members of Parliament thought existing procedures could be improved.
We have heard a wide variety of ideas on how these matters should be handled. We have heard criticisms of the way that existing delegations are selected, and about problems of pairing, and so forth. These matters cannot be dealt with in an Act of Parliament, but we all recognise that, whether through the usual channels or otherwise, they have to be dealt with.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale quoted a letter which he had received from my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. I know nothing about these matters. I understood it was a preliminary exchange of views. It is for the hon. Gentleman to determine, because he handles these matters all the time, how far letters and communications of this kind are confidential. I only know that on one occasion when I wanted to refer to a letter which had emanated from the Opposition, I was told I could not even refer to it because such things are confidential. It must be possible in our parliamentary system, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said, for some discussions to go on through the usual channels. That is what we have been trying to do.

Mr. Michael Foot: I gather there have been some expressions of disapproval of the fact that I quoted the letter. I entirely agree, as I indicated in my speech, that the usual channels are essential to conduct a great deal of the business of the House of Commons. I fully appreciate that such matters have to be conducted on a confidential basis. I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman,


concerning our discussions on the ad hoc committee, that I trusted he would not mind me referring to that matter, and he did not object in any way. I thought I did the same about the letter. If he had intervened to stay that I should not quote the letter, I should have understood. I thought it was proper to quote the letter, because I had referred to it on previous occasions. Moreover, I felt that it dealt with a matter of considerable public interest. We replied on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee of the Labour Party, so I thought it right to quote the letter. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend thinks that I should not have done so, and feels aggrieved on that account, I am sorry. That was not my intention. I thought that I was entitled to quote the letter, because I was under the impression that it was an exchange of matters of public interest.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Now that the letter has been referred to, can it be laid upon the Table of the House?

Mr. Rippon: It will be reported in tomorrow's Hansard. That will be all right. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is the usual channels, which I am not. I therefore assume that he cleared his position before he started. It is not a point for me to make. He has dealt with it, and I think that I can now move away from it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate what the hon. Member had to say about the question.
All I say on this matter, which affects every hon. Member, is that there has to be some method whereby we can have a general discussion about procedure. If a proposition is put forward through the usual channels and the Opposition disagree with it they have only to start talking and to say what they want. In that way we shall make progress. I am glad that the hon. Member has said that the Opposition are now ready to participate in these discussions.
But I do not believe that participation in discussions about the procedure of the House—which the House already controls in full—can be linked to an agreement

to incorporate a totally unnecessary and bad Clause into this Measure. The first part of the Clause covers much the same ground as that which the Committee discussed on 13th and 14th June, on an Amendment to Clause 2. We were then debating the proposition that the House should approve the list of names of representatives to the European Assembly.
The hon. Member now says that that Amendment may not have been as well drafted as the one that he has now put before the Committee. Certainly the new Clause goes slightly wider, because it calls for the approval of
Any selection of or provision for selection of
delegates, which I take to mean approval not only of the final list but of the machinery from which it emerged and any changes in membership that might subsequently take place. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) pointed out one difficulty in dealing with a matter in this way, in that the majority might amend the proposals of the minority.
However that may be, I do not believe that the new Clause raises any point that we did not cover in the debates on 13th and 14th June. I remind the Committee what I said on 14th June, namely:
There is no possibility of the House of Commons being by-passed, without there being discussion and debate on the composition of the delegation.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have mentioned the procedure adopted in other countries. Others have said that we should have regard to our experience in the Council of Europe Assembly and Western European Union, and there may be other considerations.
If it is the wish of the Committee, the Government are perfectly willing to propose the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the ways in which members could be nominated for the European Assembly. That would provide a full opportunity for views to be expressed and examined. The Select Committee could report to the House, and the report could be debated if the House so wished. I hope that I have clarified the position.
What I emphasised last night is that it is not right for matters of procedure to be dealt with in the Bill. It is unnecessary and would create an unreasonable restriction, but I agree that these matters should be discussed, and I hope the Opposition will be ready to do so in the usual way. I give the assurance that we should be happy with procedure such as a Select Committee, which would ensure that


the matter was debated and considered."—[Official Report, 14th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1515–16.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have been listening with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Does not he agree that it is not strictly a matter of procedure but of representation—not only of this House and the EEC, but of the British people? Does not he agree that, prima facie, his apparent refusal to accept this Clause or any other shows the degree to which he holds this Parliament in contempt?

Mr. Rippon: There is nothing that I can add to or subtract from what I said on 14th June. Many people share the hon. Gentleman's view that we have not put this into the Bill because we do not think it is important. That is not so. The Bill, like all Bills, has a particular and limited purpose, and I have explained it often enough. Its purpose is to make such changes in our domestic law as are necessary to give effect to our obligations under the Treaty and so, under our constitutional procedures, enable us to be in a position to ratify. It is not necessary—indeed, it is undesirable—to try to write into the Bill matters of procedure over which the House has always had and always will have complete control.
In so far as it is a matter of representation—and possibly that is not a way in which we can conduct our affairs—it is a matter which is still under the control of the House. Proposals may be made through the usual channels, but the House controls the usual channels. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, though he is now the usual channels, always took the view—and says that he still does—that in the last resort the usual channels were no substitute for parliamentary decision, and I agree with him. There is no dispute between us about that.
The House can control these matters in any way that it likes, and things may change. After all, we have this evening heard a whole host of ideas about how we should deal with this matter; whether it should be a delegation composed of the House of Commons in part, or of peers in part; whether it should be a delegation in which the representatives are chosen by the House as a whole; or whether, as the right hon. Member for

Hillsborough said, each party should make its own selection. We have heard anxieties expressed about the way in which certain Members are removed from various bodies as a matter of party discipline. That is something which many of us probably wholly deplore, but all these matters can be considered in whatever forum the House considers to be appropriate.

Sir Robin Turton: How could the House approve or disapprove the selection of Members for the European Assembly without having either a statutory power or a substantive Motion?

Mr. Rippon: The House can have a substantive Motion. My right hon. Friend explained to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) the difference between a Select Committee and some other form of committee. We do not necessarily have to have a Select Committee but, assuming that we do, it could be brought before the House. The House has within its power—it does not have to exercise the power that it has—to deal with these matters other than by making provisions in the Bill; provisions which, as I have said, are not only unnecessary but unduly restrictive.
There is nothing in our statutes to inhibit Parliament from making whatever arrangements it thinks best for dealing with these matters, whether it is the selection of the delegation to the European Assembly, on which we have spent most of our time this afternoon, or examining Community secondary legislation. These matters are governed by Standing Orders and not by statute.

Mr. English: It is important to get clear the meaning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's undertaking, because he is speaking from the Front Bench. When he says that these matters will always be under the control of this House, is he giving a positive assurance on behalf of the Government that the delegation will not be appointed by the Executive in the way that the delegation to the Council of Europe is appointed?

Mr. Rippon: These matters can be determined by the House. The House might determine to appoint the delegation in the same way as it now appoints, or accepts the appointment, of the delegation to the Council of Europe. These are


matters, not for me, but for the House as a whole. All I am saying is that they are not matters which are properly dealt with by Statute.

Mr. Jay: If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is a matter for control by the House, why should not the House exercise that control by adopting the Clause?

Mr. Rippon: This is really going back over and over the same ground. We must bear in mind that the purpose of the Bill is to make the necessary changes in our domestic law in order to comply with our treaty obligations. No change in our domestic law is required in order to select representatives to the European Assembly by any means we wish to adopt. What is absurd, with respect, is to write into an Act of Parliament a procedure which would thereby be fixed and rigid, when even the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting the concept of an ad hoc committee or a Select Committee or a procedure committee to deal with these matters.
Why should we prejudge what views a Select Committee might come forward with after considering how the European Assembly works? Why should we prejudge in any way the recommendations of the Brooke Committee on delegated legislation? It would be an absurd way, if I may say so with respect, for Parliament to proceed. In those circumstances, I trust that the Committee will not accept the Clause.

Mr. Michael Foot: We do not accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered our arguments, still less that he has answered the Father of the House in the most powerful case he has put. None the less, we hope that the Committee will now be prepared to reach a decision because we wish, if possible, to have a debate on the subsequent and extremely important new Clause.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I will not detain the House now—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am seeking to speak on a most important matter which has been raised and about which I want to put a number of important questions to my right hon. and learned Friend specifically with regard to the future. I go with my right hon.

and learned Friend 100 per cent. in believing that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for the purpose of this new Clause. It is perfectly plain that the Clause deals with domestic legislation and not with matter which ought to be encompassed by the Bill. I shall therefore vote against it.
It is quite plain, however, that there will have to be a parliamentary scrutiny committee, and I should like to know when and how it is proposed to deal with that matter, because time is now short. Will the Government be able to indicate their views as to the type of scrutiny committee that should be set up? Is the committee to be similar to the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee? How is it to be selected?

Mr. English: Mr. English On a point of order, Sir Alfred. I accept that the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) desires to have these questions answered, but a view of the Patronage Secretary was read into the record of the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The whole issue has been discussed at considerable length, and I suggest that the hon. Member should read Hansard in order to see some of the answers.

The Temporary Chairman: According to the Standing Orders, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has the right to speak.

Mr. Rees-Davies: And, if I may say so, Sir Alfred, the hon. Member made a thoroughly irrelevant and incompetent intervention. It was irrelevant because it was out of order, and also because it misquoted the Patronage Secretary's letter which did not express a view but merely canvassed ideas. It did not express the Patronage Secretary's personal view at all. It merely suggested a number of considerations. The hon. Member's intervention, therefore, was totally irrelevant and wrong.
It was incompetent because it failed to recognise that what I am seeking to do, after he himself had made a lengthy speech, is to make relevant observations for the assistance of the House in future. I am not here to waste the time of the


House, but to try to assist those who have already spoken and who have certain misgivings.
I believe that this public scrutiny committee may well be, and ought to be, an elective committee from each side of the House, and that fairly soon we ought to know what is to be the composition of such a public scrutiny committee. For reasons given tonight, this should be made known soon, because if we are entering the European Economic Community early next year it is urgent to know that such a committee will be set up fairly soon and will be able to go to Europe and consider the whole volume of the relevant legislation.
I therefore ask the Government to come forward fairly soon with their policy suggestions on this matter and to indicate whether hon. Members will be entirely selected by the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip through the usual channels or whether some type of elective method will be adopted.
10.15 p.m.
Turning to the other point about selection, the present method of selection is not a suitable one for the future because in the future we shall go on to have an elected Parliament. We should therefore, in the first stage, go to some form of election. Each of the two major parties has its methods. In our case, the Conservative Party has its Executive Committee, popularly called the '22 Committee. The Labour Party has similar methods. With the assistance of the usual channels and the Chief Whips, it is possible to get at least the feeling of the party on each side as to those who would be appropriate to serve on the Committee.
I share entirely the view of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) when he says that it is quite wrong to suppose that Members of Parliament will have to be away for very long periods in order to conduct their duties. Some of us are quite willing to give up all other careers to serve in this regard for the necessary period, and

that will be found true in the future. [An Hon. Member: "Canvassing?"] If hon. Members want me to be brief, they should not make fatuous interventions. It may be 40 or 50 days at most. It is perfectly easy to arrange transport by airliner, and thence by helicopter to the House of Commons, to enable people to engage in debates in Brussels during the day and still be back here in the evening perfectly easily. Many Members of the House of Commons conduct their commercial business overseas during the day and are back here in the evening.

To summarise this, the new Clause represents a totally wrong view. It is obviously quite unnecessary to try to put our domestic affairs into a Bill dealing with the Treaties. It is quite beyond argument to say that my right hon. Friend was not right when he had already given the whole case clearly on 12th June. This raises the important matters upon which there may well be divergences within the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, as to whether these matters ought to be dealt with by some form of election. This should be carefully considered and we ought to have the Government's guidance and their views about it at the earliest possible date.

I am sorry to have taken these few minutes at this stage but as no one had expressed that view—it was not relevant to the Minister's observations, otherwise he would have dealt with it—I thought it right to place on the record for the Government's consideration the question whether the committee is ad hoc or a Select Committee.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. Now that the Opposition have indicated their willingness to talk, as it were, I hope that we shall make speedy progress. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the importance of this matter.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 274.

Division No. 268.]
AYES
[10.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Biffen, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Bishop, E. S.


Ashley, Jack
Baxter, William
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boardman, H. (Leigh)




Body, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Bert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paget, R. T.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rankin, John


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kilfedder, James
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, I tor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Ewing, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Farr, John
McWillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
McNaman, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fell, Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Urwin, T. W.


Foley, Maurice
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Varley, Eric G.


Foot, Michael
Marten, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Forrester, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Wellbeloved, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitehead, Phillip


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moate, Roger
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael








NOES


Adley, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Astor, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gorst, John
Money, Ernle


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector


Batsford, Brian
Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
More, Jasper


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brinton, Sir Tatton




Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Pries, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Jossel, Toby
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Sir Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lament, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sproat, Iain


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
Luce, R. N.
Steel, David


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Stokes, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Foster, Sir John
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Temple, John M.


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)







Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Warren, Kenneth
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Trew, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas



Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause

PROCEDURE IN ORDERS IN COUNCIL AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

'Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act any Order in Council or statutory instrument to be made in pursuance thereof which is not subject to affirmative procedure shall be submitted for the approval of the House of Commons if notice has been given by not less than one hundred Members of Parliament of a Motion to that effect'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Shore: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In spite of the obvious importance of the two new Clauses which we have managed to debate today, it is a welcome fact that we have been able to reach this one, however brief the time we have for it. It is an important Clause in its own right, and as this appears to be the last opportunity we shall have to amend this apparently unamendable Bill, the Clause takes on a special and extra importance because of the occasion. Apart from its inherent importance, the Clause, as I hope to demonstrate, puts to the test the whole approach of Ministers to the Bill, to this Committee, and to Amendments.
The first point to make is that the Clause does not ask that there should be the affirmative procedure for all Orders in Council issued under the Bill. It does not ask for that. Under Clause 2 and Schedule 2 Ministers have the right to choose as they think fit either the negative or affirmative procedure for getting an order approved. That is the present situation. What we are asking for in the new Clause is that the affirmative procedure should be brought into play if at least 100 Members of Parliament putdown a Motion to that effect. This is obviously a very modest proposal. Matters of genuinely small importance, for which the Minister would, presumably, recommend the negative procedure, would not, I think, be likely to be affected at all by what we are proposing, for one would not easily get 100 Members of Parliament to put down a Motion on a matter generally thought to be of no great weight.
However, what the Clause allows for is that on those occasions—there will not

be many—on which 100 Members of Parliament disagree with the Minister about the importance of an Order in Council which seeks to impose obligations upon us under the Treaties they—the Members of Parliament—should then have the opportunity under the affirmative procedure to debate the order. That is what the Clause seeks.
This is a small but important proposal. Hon. Members on both sides are by now acutely aware of the problem we face on secondary legislation of all kinds. The volume of it has grown and will continue to grow. At present the Brooke Joint Select Committee is looking at the matter, but it has not even been able to produce the interim report we hoped to have before the conclusion of these Committee proceedings on the problems that will arise in dealing with secondary legislation under the Bill.
We must take the facts as they are, and the facts are simple and have been stated on a number of occasions. Under our negative procedure, we have reached the stage when many important matters are prayed against and no time is found for debates to take place. The only real guarantee we have that an Order in Council under the Bill will be debated is the occasion on which it comes under the affirmative procedure. It is only then that the Government need to seek the positive assent of the House.
I turn to what I expect will be the only serious argument against adopting the proposal. Hon. Members object if the volume of secondary legislation—Orders in Council, statutory instruments—under the Bill turns out to be so great that, even with this rather guarded procedure of invoking the affirmative resolution procedure, the House could be swamped by the number of orders that came forward. That would be a serious argument against what we are proposing.
I have a strong reason for assuring the Committee that this worry would not be justified in the case of the Bill. It is a curious fact that we do not face armies of Community regulations which have to be turned into statutory instruments by the House. We do not face this situation, not because there are no great armies of Community law that will soon be on the march, but because, since they will move under the command of Clause 2(1),


they will not march through the House at all. That is the point. Therefore, the procedures of the House, whether affirmatime or negative, will not be invoked at all.
What we are concerned about is not the bottleneck which might be caused by the thousands and thousands—as there will be—of regulations and decisions, the self-enacting directly applicable law which we shall have no right to inspect, so far as I can judge, and certainly no right to approve or disapprove. We are not concerned about the great armies of Community law, but only the occasional straggler or deserter who will wander into the House under the requirement of translating a directive into a piece of secondary legislation in this Parliament.

Sir Robin Turton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must also mention that there is already a large phalanx of directives, going back to 1962, lying there waiting to be brought up to this House after our entry.

Mr. Shore: I shall be coming to that point shortly and it will be of interest to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I have asked questions of the Chancellor of the Duchy about these matters, and perhaps he may now be able to answer them. I am surprised to learn that only six statutory instruments need to be laid this year under Clause 2(2), which is the only provision of the Bill which relates to statutory instruments. Furthermore, he has a requirement to lay only 12 in the whole of 1973. That is the position as it emerges.
Partly the answer to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is that a number of very important matters which have to be translated from Community directives into English law will not be introduced under the procedures of this legislation but will be enacted through the secondary legislation procedures in relation to other British legislation into which the new wine Community law is about to be poured. In other words, if we are forced to accept the unacceptable Eurolorries, the new regulations which will pertain to the length, size and weight of lorries in this country will be enacted by means of

a Statutory Instrument under the Road Traffic Act of 1972, changes in our exchange control system will come through the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and so on. That is why there are only six instruments in 1972, only 12 in 1973, and not all that many more after.
One reason for this is that it is part of the desire of the Community and its institutions to have as much of its law enacted in a way which cannot be challenged by Parliament and which does not even need the translation into our law which a directive forms. Instead, it opts for the unchallengeable, unalterable, unget-atable Community directly enforceable law in the form of regulations and decisions. However, I think that I have made my point. All that we have to deal with is a very small number of directives.
Even if I had been recommending to the Committee that we use affirmative procedures for all Community secondary legislation, it could not be argued that this was a bit of machinery which would gum up, delay or throw out of gear ministerial timetables or the ability of the Government to bring the law of this land into line with the requirements of the Community.
Let me sum up my arguments. I said that there are no practical reasons for opposing the Clause. We are dealing with a trickle of subordinate legislation, and that is all. In our modesty, we have not even asked that all such orders should take the affirmative procedure. We have simply made it possible, in those cases where 100 Members ask for that right, that an order should have to go through the affirmative procedure for approval.
While there is no reason why the Clause should be rejected, obviously there are very strong reasons why it should be accepted. No one with any regard for Parliament and for the democratic process could fail, in the absence of strong opposing considerations which do not operate in this case, to opt for more rather than less parliamentary control. Those who resist this proposal will be doing nothing either for or against Europe. There will be time to talk for or against Europe. There will be time to talk about that matter on other occasions. This debate is wholly about


whether we choose to give greater power to a Minister to issue Statutory Instruments or whether we keep a bit more of that power for ourselves under the Clause.
I said at the beginning that this was not only a test of the attitude of pro-Common Market Members on both sides of the Committee but also perhaps the acid test of the approach of the Chancellor of the Duchy to whether we are to be able to amend the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman turns down this Clause, as he has so many others, he will have demonstrated for all to see that he is not concerned at all with any possibility of improvement, and that he is concerned simply to railroad this Bill through with a minimum of public discussion and in the shortest possible time.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made his last speech in the Committee very much in the same tone as his first. He has made his usual reference to the directly applicable Community law, to which he takes exception but which we must accept, as we must always have accepted if we were ever to have made an honest application to join the EEC. Again he has misunderstood—a kinder description than "misrepresented"—the nature of the Bill.
This Bill is designed to enable us to give effect to the necessary changes in our domestic law in order to comply with our treaty obligations. The new Clause proposes an innovation, and one which would not be an improvement. Its effect would be that parliamentary procedure for dealing with certain subordinate legislation under the Bill could be determined simply by the number of hon. Members who put their names to a Motion. Such a statutory method of determining parliamentary procedures would be wholly unprecedented and its inclusion in a Statute would be contrary to the long-held, and rightly held, tradition that these matters are decided by Parliament itself without recourse to the Statute Book.
This indication that the new Clause would be the wrong way to proceed is demonstrated by the fact that the House has set up the Joint Committee on Dele-

gated Legislation, under the Chairmanship of Lord Brooke, which is at present examining the whole question of the methods of scrutinising subordinate legislation. Schedule 2 already contains a completely flexible provision which enables instruments to be laid in draft for affirmative resolution in particular cases.
If hon. Members believe that the Government have chosen to make by a negative resolution an instrument which should be debated, the proper course is for them under the appropriate procedures to put down a Prayer. That is the proper procedure and not to try to introduce a new hybrid procedure which would make an instrument in effect neither properly an affirmative nor properly a negative one. The matter was considered recently by the Select Committee on Procedure. It considered among other things the time available to debate Prayers which may be put down in these circumstances. The evidence is that there has never been a case in which there has been tremendous pressure for a particular Prayer where time has not been found.
But, of course, Parliamentary pressure in a case of this kind is measured not by the number of hon. Members who put their names to a Motion but in terms of the quality and strength of the Opposition. After all, it is possible, although not something which hon. Members opposite want to contemplate, that after the next General Election there will not be 100 members of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, but under the new Clause they would then find written into a Statute a procedure which would enable the Government of the day to say, "We need to take no further action." But we know perfectly well that, as happened in 1931, Parliament evolves procedures which protect the rights of a minority, however small it might happen to be after a particularly disastrous visit to the electorate. These are matters of substance and principle which enable me to advise the Committee to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Surely the new Clause does not specify that 100 Opposition Members shall put down a Motion but that 100 Members shall do so. Why should not hon. Members on the Government side of the House be allowed to take action of this kind?

Mr. Rippon: We do not know what might happen in a future Parliament. It may be that in a future Parliament the Government—it might be a Labour Government—will impose their will on a Conservative minority. Judging by the ferocity with which the Labour Party is inclined to whip its Members against their consciences, it may be a difficult situation.
Apart from what I believe to be a point of substance and principle, the new Clause is a non-runner by any standards. It is defective, because it is not clear. Instruments concerned, subject to the negative Resolution procedure, will have been made and may be in effect before a Motion is put down. There is no indication of the time within which a Motion must be put down or what happens to the instrument when the required number of signatures has been obtained. Is it annulled, temporarily suspended, or does it continue, as before, until it has been debated and then cease to have effect only if not approved? If it is approved within the time limit for a Prayer for annulment, is it still subject to annulment by a Resolution of the other House?
All those technical objections are of secondary importance compared with the point of principle which I put to the Committee at the outset and have reiterated throughout the Committee proceedings, namely, that it is inappropriate to deal with matters of procedure in a Bill of this kind and so import an unnecessary and unprecendented degree of inflexibility into our procedures which are properly dealt with by Standing Orders.
I hope I have said enough to illustrate the good and sufficient reasons for rejection of the new Clause.
When the time comes for those who wish to write their memoirs to re-read the Committee proceedings, they will find that every Amendment which the Opposition have put forward has been dealt with entirely on its merits and that we have provided good and sufficient reasons for its rejection.

Mr. Shore: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the view that he has dealt with Amendments which have come from his own side on their merits?

Mr. Rippon: Most certainly I do. The replies which I and other Ministers have

given have illustrated that. I firmly hold the view that we have dealt with all the Amendments on their merits.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Rippon: Finally, and I hope with the approval of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although it is probably out of order on this new Clause, I should like to say how much we have appreciated the way that you, Sir Robert, and your colleagues have conducted these long and ar—

Hon. Members: Arbitrary.

Mr. Rippon: —arduous procedures with so much good humour and concern for the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Kaufman: I should like to ask the indulgence of the Committee on the occasion of my maiden speech on the European Communities Bill.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can indulge in the extraordinary acrobatics in which he accuses the Opposition of putting forward a new Clause of unprecedented inflexibility. If ever there was unprecedented inflexibility, the Committee has seen it since the Bill received Second Reading by the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has turned down every Amendment proposed by either pro-Marketeers or anti-Marketeers on both sides of the Committee.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he cannot accept this so-called new Clause because it proposes something new, as though this whole Bill, which has been dragooned through the House of Commons, is not inflicting new, unprecedented, intolerable and undemocratic practices on us of a kind that have never been inflicted upon this Parliament before.
All that my right hon. Friends seek to do at this stage of the proceedings is to put forward one small, puny, whimpering new Clause asking that if 100 Members wish to debate something they shall be permitted to do so. But when we put this Clause forward the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that my right hon. Friends are indulging in unprecedented inflexibility.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has not been in the Committee throughout the day. Does he not recall, however, that at an earlier stage in our debates an Amendment in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself sought to define the phrase "enforceable Community right"? The question was discussed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee but the Chancellor of the Duchy did not even deign to reply, giving reasons why he wished the Amendment not to be accepted. That was an example of the way in which he has treated the Committee throughout this stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Kaufman: The miasma of Brussels has fallen upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That being so, we scarcely expect him to treat this assembly with respect, especially when accompanied by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has managed to turn British law into a dog's breakfast. I trust that hon. Members opposite—and hon. Ladies, too—who were elected to this Parliament on the ground that they would not vote for entry into the Common Market unless the people accepted the idea will now, at literally the eleventh hour, find their consciences, look at their election manifestoes, examine their mandates and at least help to defeat this Government and have a Report stage of the Bill.

Sir David Renton: The speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is characteristic of a party that is trying to narrow its base by excluding all those Members who genuinely believe that we should support the Bill. That contrasts with the position of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who belong to a party that is keeping its base broad

by respect of the sincerity of those of its Members who oppose the Bill.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was rather strange, because it expressed hopes of a procedural point that would not have been fulfilled by the Clause that he was moving. He was dealing with a purely procedural point, which turned on the difference between the affirmative and the negative procedure in the House of Commons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the principal difference between those two procedures is that under the affirmative procedure the Government have an obligation to use their intiative and under the negative procedure back benchers have an opportunity to use their initiative if they wish.

I must come clean and point out that there is one further difference, namely, that often more time is given to the discussion on the affirmative procedure than on the negative procedure. During the course of these discussions it has become clear that hon. Members opposite are much more interested in the length of time spent upon debate than upon its content.

The right hon. Gentleman's new Clause frustrates his intention because, under it, instead of using the negative procedure and the initiative available to hon. Members anyway, he would have to go—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 277.

Division No. 269.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Body, Richard
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Biffen, John
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davidson, Arthur




Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, I. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest G.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ewing, Henry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marquand, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsden, F.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marten, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Swain, Thomas


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Tuck, Raphael


Hattersley, Roy
Moate, Roger
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kealey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molyneaux, James
Urwin, T. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wallace, George


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Wellbeloyed, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hutchison, Michael Clark
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram. Bert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins. Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Palmer, Arthur



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pardoe, John
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Benyon, W.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Biggs-Davison, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Blaker, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bossom, Sir Clive







Bowden, Andrew
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Phillip
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas



Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Sir Richard


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'ch &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lambton, Lord
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lamont, Norman
Simeons, Charles


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sproat, Iain


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
Luce, R. N.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steel, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stuttatord, Dr. Tom


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Foster, Sir John
Madel, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fowler, Norman
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Temple, John M.


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Trew, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernle
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Morrison, Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry







Wilkinson, John
Woodnutt, Mark



Winterton, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

Then The Chairman left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to Order [2nd May].

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

RAILWAY LINE (WIMBLEDON-CROYDON)

11.12 p.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: I propose to use my good fortune in the ballot to raise a matter of great constituency importance for Croydon, namely, the threatened closure of the West Croydon-Wimbledon railway, [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]. From the enthusiastic response to these sentiments shown by hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber, we have learned that the matter is of high importance not only in Croydon but throughout the United Kingdom.
I must warn my hon. Friend the Undersecretary that I have a formidable track record in the matter of keeping open branch lines. It is just about a decade ago that an earlier Minister for Transport, misguidedly as it happens, decided to place under threat of closure the Wood-side—Sanderstead line in my constituency. We fought a battle for a year. I remind my hon. Friend that on 18th December, 1963, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), then Minister for Transport, conceded to me that this line should not be closed. He added a little piece to the effect that he would review the situation after three years if it were not paying by then. Nine years have slipped by and the line is still open so we know that he decided wisely.
Today I am speaking for the Croydon Transport Users' Association, assisted by the Merton Transport Users' Association, which this very day have presented their case to the Transport Users' Consultative

Committee in Wimbledon, opposing the closure of the line. I want to commend the public spirit of these two voluntary bodies. They have conducted researches and polls, held meetings and taken counts. In short, they have thoroughly researched the question whether the users of the line were prepared to tolerate its closure, and the answer they have received is an emphatic "No". My constituents before the TUCC have to prove hardship if they have any hope of keeping the line open. Although I do not want to go into detail into their arguments, I shall summarise them before going on to some of the wider aspects of the matter.
The people affected by the closure of the line are about 1,500 daily commuters and more than 1,000 other passengers drawn from a wide area. If the passenger services are withdrawn, certain things will happen which, in my submission, amply prove the case of hardship. First, three-quarters of these passengers, mostly the commuters, will pay up to 50p more per week in order to get to and from their work. Secondly, anyone who formerly used the line will have a longer and more tiring journey. Thirdly, we shall see a serious increase in the already intolerable road congestion in Croydon, Mitcham and Wimbledon in the rush hour and on Saturdays. Fourthly, the so-called alternative routes, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State will trot out, are slower, less reliable, usually more costly and always less direct. Fifthly, there will be a loss of easy and convenient access to the social, recreational and shopping facilities which make Croydon, the largest of the London boroughs, a magnet for miles around. Sixthly, this will cause the closure of passenger services which will cause particular hardships to special classes of people who use the line. I am referring to school children who make their daily double journey, handicapped people attending the training centre in Mitcham—a very important group—and almost everyone living on the Bedding-ton Lane estate who have no other means of public transport.
I am certain that the British Railways will counter all this by claiming that the


line does not pay. It is never difficult to compile figures which the travelling public cannot challenge showing that any particular activity is making a loss. No one can challenge the process which decides which factors are taken into account. There is an old Chinese proverb which says that in a besieged city the cook never starves. British Rail will, if necessary, all find a means of showing that a particular activity does not pay.
Branch lines have never paid by themselves. They must be considered as part of an integrated system which has to be considered overall. The costs of branch lines cannot be isolated.
Let me turn to British Rail's own data on the statistics for operating the line. These show that on Mondays to Fridays 12,671 passenger-miles are travelled every day. Weekly seasons range from 23p to 48p per mile, and monthly seasons from 83p to £1·9p per mile. Let us give the benefit of the doubt to British Rail. Let us take the lower figure; 12,500 daily passenger-miles bring in £125,000 per annum. That is if one does it on 12 monthly seasons—that is to say, assuming that the commuters take out monthly tickets. If one assumes that they take out weekly tickets, which are pro rata more expensive, then the figure comes to £145,000, ignoring altogether Saturday revenue. This shows that we have been given an underestimate of the revenue from the line.
If the line closes for passenger services, according to the Merton survey, some 30 per cent, of the passengers are likely to travel still by rail via Sutton. If they did this, it would produce about £10,000 per annum additional revenue to British Rail. But the rest of the passengers who do not choose to go this way will be forced on to the buses. The revenue of £105,000 they used to pay will be totally lost to British Rail—a net loss of well over £95,000 a year.
Let us look at the flyblown old argument that closure will result in great economies. Of course, it will not. Signalmen, level crossing operators and track maintenance staff will still be required for the freight traffic for which the line, at any rate for some time, is proposed to be kept open.
While we are talking about freight traffic, here is a most astonishing thing.

I have discovered that the coal for Croydon B power station actually arrives by road—this notwithstanding the fact that the railway track runs through its back yard and there are ample sidings and unloading facilities. Is not this an astonishing thing? One nationalised industry, the National Coal Board, supplies another nationalised industry, the Electricity Generating Board. One would think they would be reasonable and use a third nationalised industry, British Rail, to take the raw material from the mines to the power station. But one would be quite wrong. This coal all comes from Northumberland. It is taken to the coast. It is loaded into coasters. It is ferried down the North Sea. It makes its way up the Medway. It is discharged at Kings-north and then it is fed into lorries which congest the roads of Croydon, the A20 and the South-East of England in order to supply Croydon B power station.

One would think it was within the wit of British Rail to contrive to send this raw material, given its vast elaborate network, to a guaranteed customer somehow or other by rail. I do not altogether criticise the Croydon power station. It has a duty to get its supplies there as cheaply and as conveniently as possible. I suppose it is found that this can be done much better by hiring lorries. But if British Rail wants to improve the economic return from this line, why does it not fix up a system of freight rates which will enable the coal to be brought all the way by rail, as any rational person would think it ought to be?
I say to my hon. Friend that there is no evidence that this line is not covering its costs. The central overheads in the account, which it is so difficult to challenge, are irrelevant because they will not be reduced by the closure. Nobody imagines that great numbers of staff will be sacked by British Rail because passenger services are withdrawn on the Croydon to Wimbledon line. In any case, these overheads, or a share of them, will afterwards be transferred to all the other services, which will correspondingly become less profitable.
I hope that my hon. Friend, when he considers these matters, will look beyond petty economies which save nothing, infuriate regular passengers, and drive yet more people on to the roads. Let him


put all that aside and look to his overall strategy for dealing with commuters.
This is the general part of the case I want to make against the closure of this line. No amount of road building in Greater London will help commuters. We are close to saturation now, and every year sees more cars piling on to our roads. In these circumstances my hon. Friend should be promoting his suburban rail services, not abandoning them. Once closed, the line will lanquish for a bit, I suppose carrying a small and dwindling amount of traffic, and then be lost for ever, but the problem of the commuters will remain and get worse.
Let my hon. Friend learn from the experience of the United States where a great many great cities, having allowed their suburban rail services to dwindle away, are now busy re-establishing them and looking desperately round for new public transport to solve the commuter problem. Indeed, the whole point of the recent Transpo exhibition in the States, at which, I am glad to say, British Rail was represented, and which, I believe, officials of my hon. Friend's Ministry attended, was to encourage research into and development of commuter services.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that the two largest car manufacturers in the world, General Motors and Ford, now accept that urban congestion has reached a point which imposes a limit on the future use and, therefore, of future sales of motor cars. In other words, if those giants want to stay in business they have to find something else to manufacture. So it is that, with Government support and subsidy, they are spending enormous sums on research into alternative means of shifting commuters into and out of the cities of today and tomorrow. That is happening in the United States now—in the United States, the land of the motor car. And what has happened there is very likely to be repeated after a short interval in this country.
My hon. Friend should understand that, unlike country branch lines—I am not making a general case for keeping them all open—which often no longer serve large populations and where, clearly, motor transport is more convenient and

quicker, urban branch lines like this one ought to be kept open because they do and they can make a great contribution to the relief of the commuter problem. Instead of their being allowed to wither, every effort should be made to attract passengers by improved services, by better publicity, if necessary by differential fares.
A short time ago I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend that, if he were in difficulty over this line, instead of chopping services he might think the other way and perhaps offer half fares to get some of the customers back and to attract more. All I got to that was a curt, "No.". Nevertheless, there is the germ of an idea. If a service is running down, people should not conclude that it is necessarily doomed to death. They should use their wits to try to improve the service, including, if necessary, an adjustment in fares to attract passengers.
The time is coming when congestion at peak hours will bring road transport to a standstill. Therefore, do not let us delude ourselves that X railway passengers can be diverted to cars or buses. Let us remember, too, that Croydon is and was deliberately planned to be the largest shopping employment and communications centre in London outside the central area. It has the communications. Let us put them to good use.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to allow the line to remain open, just as his predecessor did with another line which has justified his faith in it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) for his clear exposition of the problems posed by the Wimbledon to West Croydon railway service, the future of which is currently under consideration, and also for his remarks about the broader aspects of rail closures. This will give me a welcome opportunity to explain the position more fully and, I hope, help to clear away any misunderstandings that may have arisen.
My hon. Friend has made the general point that the closure of minor rail services should be considered not in isolation but against the background of the rail services as a whole and that the London commuter services in particular should be


preserved against the possibility of their being needed in the eventuality of restrictions being imposed on the use of private cars in the inner London area. I can assure him that proposals to withdraw individual passenger services are never considered in isolation.
The financial assessments that are made as an essential preliminary in these matters always take account of contributory revenue that would be lost on associated rail passenger services which would no longer have the benefit of passengers using the connections provided by the particular service considered for closure and the increased operating costs which would fall on the other services which shared the use, and therefore the cost, of track and signalling facilities.
In the London area in particular, the services are closely inter-related in the London commuter network. This is reflected, for example, in the arrangements for paying grant under Section 39 of the Transport Act, 1968, to meet the cost of unremunerative services which need to be maintained for social reasons. For the London commuter network, of which the Wimbledon-West Croydon service forms a part, the services are not grant-aided specifically but an overall payment is made covering the unremunerative burden for the network as a whole. But this is not to say that it would be wrong to prune the network or make other adjustments to it from time to time. The operation of these services is reviewed annually to determine what investment should be made to help towards achieving an economically viable service network and to the same end consideration is given to the possibility of modifying the existing services or eliminating those marginal services for which the consumer need might more economically and efficiently be served by other modes of transport.
Now turn to the particular case of the Wimbledon-West Croydon rail passenger service which is the central point of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend. This is a suburban branch line service, providing connections with main-line or semi-fast London services at Wimbledon, Mitcham Junction and West Croydon. Average usage of the eight stations comprised in the service is about 1,700 passengers a day each way, which is low compared with other suburban services of its type. It is one of the heavier loss

makers in the Railway Board's London and South-Eastern railway services which are, of course, part of the London commuter network.
These services, as I have already said, form a complex network which for planning purposes is regarded as a single entity. The economics of operating the network is closely linked with policies for the quality of service, investment and Government grants both on capital and on revenue account. These policies together form an element in a general approach directed towards achieving a suitable balance between public and private transport in the area.
My hon. Friend can rest assured that, during the course of the closure procedures, British Rail will be providing my right hon. Friend with very full information, on a well-established basis, about the financial and economic considerations involved. Part of this assessment, which can usefully be made public, is the savings which can be made in real resource terms—that is to say, the physical assets such as station buildings, track, signalling and rolling stock and the longer term cost of renewals.
It was simple indicators such as this which suggested that a closer examination of the social disbenefits of closure would be worth while. A convenient way of doing this, which also has the merit of involving public participation, is to test the case in the closure machinery. This is now in the process of being done, and I must emphasise should not in any way be taken as an indication that my right hon. Friend or the British Railways Board have taken up any firm position in the matter.
A preliminary notice of intention to publish a closure proposal for the service was given last July under Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1968, and the formal proposal was published last March under Section 56 of the Act. This proposal has been open to objection for the prescribed statutory period of six weeks and objections from local authorities and other representative bodies, and also from individual users of the rail service, are being considered by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for London. For this purpose, as my hon. Friend said, they are holding a public hearing today at the Merton Town Hall in Wimbledon.
The Committee is particularly concerned with any hardship or inconvenience which would be caused to the travelling public through closure of the rail passenger service—for example, in terms of increased journey times and in using alternative services. I noticed the emphasis placed by my hon. Friend on this aspect of the matter, and he has been supported by strong representations which I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill).
The Croydon Transport Users Association is represented at the hearing and is presenting its report to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention tonight. I am sure the House will understand my reluctance to pass any comment on the merits of these proposals, or on suggestions which have been made for economising in the cost of maintaining the service at the present early stage of the procedures. In due course my right hon. Friend will receive the report of the Transport Users Consultative Committee following the conclusion of the public hearing. My right hon. Friend will also have advice from other interested bodies, including the local authorities in the area which the railway line serves—the Greater London Council in particular—and the views of the Economic Planning Council for the South East Region, on any longer term future which is foreseen for the line.
A further important factor in this case is the Greater London Development Plan. During the earlier stages of the inquiry

into this plan there was considerable debate about the primary road system in Greater London, including the M23 motorway and the orbital ring way systems built to motorway standards. The merits of a southern orbital rail facility as an alternative to the orbital road system was also considered, and the Wimbledon—West Croydon line could form part of such an orbital railway.
These are matters which are as yet unresolved, and I can assure the House that no decision will be taken on this closure proposal without careful consideration of any relevant matters which may emerge from the inquiry into this plan. I cannot anticipate what this decision may be, so that I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend, as he will understand, any reason to hope that the success which he mentioned in the case of a previous closure proposal will be repeated on this occasion. All I can say is that, in reaching a decision, all relevant factors, including all the advice and information which have been mentioned tonight and any further matters which may be brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, will be taken into account.
I appreciate the trouble my hon. Friend has taken in raising this matter which I fully understand is of considerable importance to his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock